Baroness Byford: My Lords, as the House is a little quiet this morning, perhaps I may ask the Minister about the competence of the IT system. It has been suggested that the delay is due to the system not being able to cope, a suggestion reflected in the question from the noble Lord, Lord Livsey. As I am being allowed a second question today, I should like to know whether the system is up and running and able to cope with the enormous number of claims that will be coming in?

Lord Bach: My Lords, the first two key IT developments—a land register and a customer register—have been delivered. However, there have been late EU policy changes to the single payment scheme, as late as December 2004. Consequently, the IT system for administering the single payment scheme has had to be modified. Frankly, that has led to later than planned delivery and availability of the subsequent systems. Nevertheless, we believe that the planned delivery dates provide a sufficient margin to process and pay valid applications by the projected payment date of February 2006. The noble Baroness says that that date has been put back. Across Europe, there is a window between December 2005 and May 2006 for these payments to be made. We are due to pay in February 2006.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am not sitting on the fence. I am giving noble Lords the benefit of my wisdom on this matter. I am surprised that the noble Lord does not see that there is much more to be looked at. He is right that the Electoral Commission has been clear about what it thinks, but it has also changed its mind. In 2003, it took a different view on all-postal vote pilots.
	It is important that, if we are invited to do so by local authorities which are considering a pilot, we look at some of the new issues that we put forward in our consultation paper, for example, those on security. We can test different ways of approaching it—as the noble Lord will know, there are different views about it—and pilots are an opportunity for us to do that.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, local authorities do not only apply for advice; they have to apply for permission to do it. I do not know whether we provide a copy of the recommendations at that point, but I am confident that all local authorities will have had copies of the Electoral Commission report.

Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, does the Minister accept that had local authorities and bus companies been consulted before the announcement was made they might have been able to make the point then that the £350 million proposed by the Chancellor represents a significant shortfall? In the Tyne and Wear passenger transport area it is estimated that there will be a shortfall of £14 million. This can only be met either by either reducing the bus services or increasing the council tax. Does the noble Lord agree that either of those options rather defeats the object?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Baroness is in danger of looking a gift horse in the mouth. I cannot imagine that too many Liberal Democrat candidates campaigned against this initiative at the last election. We have announced that we intend to introduce free bus travel for pensioners and the disabled and we have indicated that we are putting forward, for discussion with the local authorities, a sum to implement the policy. Nothing is cut a dried at the present time. An order will need to be laid before Parliament for further debate on this matter. Of course it is important that adequate resources are made available, but it will be recognised by the House that this is a very important step forward.

Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld: My Lords, I declare an interest as parliamentary consultant to the Confederation of Passenger Transport UK and chairman of the Bus Appeals Body, which is the complaints organisation for the industry. Does my noble friend agree that schemes such as this, which encourage people to move from their private cars to the bus, which has rising ridership anyway, is a good thing? If more people were to use the bus instead of using their private cars, perhaps the Secretary of State for Transport would not have to consider the kind of measures he has recently announced.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I agree that one dimension of the policy will be to increase bus travel and, it is to be hoped, reduce the use of cars. My noble friend is right to draw attention to that. We should also recognise that for the over 60s buses are an essential form of travel. Large numbers of elderly people do not have access to cars or are not able to drive themselves. So the bus is essential. Our extension of a free service to older people and the disabled will, I am sure, be welcomed on all sides.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, of course someone has to pay. That is why we have attached a price tag to the policy, which we think will command public assent for the benefits that it brings to those significant groups. The noble Lord suggests yet another area of policy where some form of means testing would have be imposed before one obtained a pass. The cost involved in that kind of exercise would be well beyond marginal. That is why we are introducing the policy in all its simplicity.

Lord Puttnam: rose to call attention to the contribution made by the arts to urban regeneration; and to move for Papers.
	My Lords, in introducing this welcome opportunity to debate the contribution made by the arts to urban regeneration, I can do no better than start with an observation by an eminent former Member of your Lordships' House, John Maynard Keynes, who, in 1945, conjured up the possibility that cities that were half in ruin might one day be remade as great, artistic metropolises.
	Well, my Lords, I am delighted to report that in just about every respect that is at last happening. I am not so much introducing a debate as relating a success story, and a slightly unexpected one at that. Lord Keynes was, of course, speaking as chairman of what was to become the Arts Council. And that "Arts Council" was itself part of a wider movement of reform that, to all intents and purposes, transformed this country.
	The optimistic vision of the role of the arts in post-war regeneration that Keynes articulated was all of a piece with the creation of the NHS, the widening of public education and the establishment of the welfare state. In fact, it was an integral part of the many changes that society wholeheartedly embraced in response to the horrors and the hardships that typified the first half of the 20th century. Free access to health, education and the arts were seen as a kind of trinity of opportunity that was fundamental to the development of a genuinely civilised society.
	It is also probably true to say that the best part of 50 years elapsed before that particular trinity was rearticulated with anything like similar conviction. It took the creation of the National Lottery to deliver the resources required to inject life into what had been the hand-to-mouth, make- do-and-mend, day-to-day cultural experience of this country.
	I have recently been accused of being one of those people who seeks to take the politics out of politics. While I honestly do not believe that to be true, I will do my reputation no favours by making it clear that this cultural success story does enormous credit to the vision and perseverance of politicians of all parties and, at least until now, the comparative restraint successive governments have shown in ring-fencing lottery resources in such a way as to make what for so long appeared to be impossible not only possible, but deliverable.
	Please step forward the noble Lord, Lord Baker, the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, who I am delighted to see is participating in today's debate, and our soon-to-be colleague the right honourable Virginia Bottomley. The then Prime Minister also deserves major plaudits. The Liberal Democrat Benches should be allowed to glow a little because they have always tended towards a constructive and engaged policy in respect of the lottery. My own party's contribution was essentially to recognise a good idea when it saw one and, when the time came, to allow it to flourish.
	When, in the summer of 1994, the noble Lord, Lord Chadlington, invited me to serve under his admirable chairmanship on the first Arts Council lottery panel, we had some vague but fairly unformed ideas as to how investment in the infrastructure of the arts could result in wider improvements to the nation's social fabric. But once plunged into the complexity of the commitment to the Royal Opera House, our thoughts ran little further than the notion that if you redeveloped a disused railway arch as a community theatre or an art gallery, someone may be encouraged to reconsider the potential of the arches adjoining it. In many respects our earliest ambitions were, quite literally, that modest, but not for long.
	By 1996, we discovered that our funding of arts infrastructure was paying dividends well beyond our wildest dreams, and we began to plan and invest accordingly. In part, the drive in favour of regeneration was fuelled by the Government's commitment to what was, in effect, a self-denying ordinance; the concept of "additionality", which was interpreted as laying an emphasis on capital expenditure. I was delighted and somewhat relieved to see that commitment reappear on page 50 of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport's five-year plan, rather unimaginatively entitled Living Life to the Full.
	In setting out the basic principles that are key to the lottery's success, and which must be safeguarded, the plan says:
	"Lottery funding must continue to be additional to government funding; it must not replace public sector spending".
	Given the rather over-excited press speculation that at present surrounds this subject I am sure that the Minister, in his response, will wish, once and for all, to lay all of these anxieties to rest.
	So what, in those early years, did my then chairman and I learn about the impact of the arts on urban regeneration? We learnt that a well thought through investment in arts infrastructure invariably led to greatly enhanced pride, and a breaking down of cultural and social barriers within communities. We learnt how to redefine access and we tested the ability of interest groups to share their thinking, along with their facilities. We learnt that the concept of "partnership funding" produced imaginative sources of private and community investment that we at the centre had never even thought of. We learnt that if you permit people to take a fresh look at their environment, to get a sense of what is possible, they begin themselves to set about improving it. We learnt that what could be made to work in the arts could also be replicated in other areas—in sport, in education, in provision for the elderly, and so on.
	I hope that noble Lords will forgive me for devoting so much time to what might be described as the context that informs our present, relatively happy position, but I think it is important. I am quite certain that many of the noble Lords who have generously agreed to contribute to this debate will have their own examples of that dreadful but much used phrase, "best practice". So, in the time remaining to me, I will concentrate on just two or three examples of what has been achieved and why I believe we have every right to celebrate.
	I returned yesterday evening from Newcastle where I was able gaze across the Millennium Bridge at the Baltic Art Centre and the Sage Gateshead—three iconic structures that any city in the world would all but die for. It is sort of a miracle really, but it is a miracle resulting directly from the vision and the commitment to their community of a handful of really good souls. It is the kind of miracle that can only result from a combination of political stability, tenacity and good timing.
	You have to go back almost 20 years to find the genesis of the Gateshead miracle, to a time when Councillor Sid Henderson and his head of cultural services, Bill McNaught—backed to the hilt by their then leader, George Gill—appointed a full time arts officer, Ros Rigby, and initiated an extraordinary community arts and public sculpture programme. That really took off in 1990 with the National Gardens Festival, at which no fewer than 70 works of art were displayed.
	The installation of Anthony Gormley's monumental Angel of the North eight years later was very much the natural consequence of that early faith in the power of public sculpture. Other local heroes, such as Les Elton, Tony Pender, Peter Hewitt and Andrew Dixon pressed forward with their Case for Capital, a document launched in this building by a young Opposition Front Bench spokesman named Tony Blair. It precisely set out the vision that almost a decade later—greatly supported by the Arts Council—became the splendid reality that I encountered yesterday.
	Before moving south, I cannot resist indulging in a bit of local pride by mentioning the phenomenal success of the Sunderland Museum and Winter Gardens. Rebuilt with the support of the Heritage Lottery Fund and launched in 2001, it has since received more than 1.5 million visitors and was last year runner-up in the English tourism "oscars". We are now hoping that Sunderland will perform equally well in the Premiership next season: I think I hear a muttered reference to yet another miracle!
	I would like to finish by taking a look at a case history that pulls all of those threads together. It is just across the river, a short boat ride away to Southwark—the Tate Modern. Let us start with the fact that, from scratch—or with a little help from Sir Gilbert Scott—we have created the most successful museum of modern art in the world. Attendance has been double the then seemingly optimistic original expectations. The total number of visitors from its opening on 12 May 2000 to date is well over 21.5 million. By way of comparison, visitor numbers are running at roughly double those of the Museum of Modern Art in New York and the Pompidou Centre in Paris.
	But for the purposes of today's debate, there is an even better story to tell. I will take it as read that the dramatic improvement to the skyline across from St Paul's is a source of delight to all but the staunchest members of the Victorian Society. The Tate Modern is already estimated to contribute annually between £95 million and £140 million in economic benefits to London. It has generated something close to 2,000 new jobs in the area of Southwark, and that is set to double in the coming decade.
	Your Lordships have patiently listened to me "banging on" for over seven years now about the growth and importance of the cultural industries. So much so that it would be perfectly reasonable to expect me, or them, to begin to run out of steam. Well, I may be, but the cultural industries continue to go from strength to strength. They now represent over 8 per cent of this nation's GDP; that is up from 5 per cent when I started banging on a few years ago. They continue to grow at double the pace of the rest of the economy. It is the linkage between the creative or cultural industries and regeneration through investment in arts infrastructure that really lies at the heart of this debate.
	I beg noble Lords not just to take my word for it. Take that short ride down the river and experience what "regeneration", an inadequate word for what I am trying to describe, really feels like. We should then cast our minds back to the Southwark wharves of Dickens's time, or the 1930s, 1950s or even the 1970s, all in their ways decades through which the community struggled in what became a byword for exploitation, unemployment and hopelessness. But if, my Lords, the sum total of human activity is to pull people out of misery and into living fulfilling lives, a trip around Southwark today may be enough to convince you that we have not all been wasting our time. I am no Pollyanna because of course much remains to be done, but the direction of travel feels right.
	The Tate estimates that the cultural sector within just its own study area will grow by some 55 per cent over the next 10 years. That translates into well over £0.5 billion a year in value and some 20,000 additional jobs, all within a vastly improved environment. I see that as the real value that the arts bring to urban regeneration, and it is happening all over this country. I beg to move for Papers.

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, for raising such an important matter at such a critical time. There is an undoubted growing interest in the relationship between culture and its capacity to stimulate social and economic growth. Urban regeneration can and is taking place in many areas of Britain, underpinned and sustained through harnessing creative talent.
	This debate is a welcome opportunity to celebrate the success and notoriety that we currently enjoy as a direct result of the endeavours of our nation's inspirational creators and artists, and their contribution to urban regeneration. It also gives me the chance to emphasise the amazing contribution made by the arts to educational opportunities. We must thank the voluntary sector for the enormous contribution it makes. Indeed, the many voluntary groups going into schools, providing more music and drama, must be encouraged and not stifled by needless regulation and political correctness.
	I want to highlight some areas where more can be done to foster even greater and more diverse creativity, as well as where recent legislation has put obstacles in the path of regeneration. Throughout my last three years on the DCMS brief, I have taken the opportunity to voice my thoughts and concerns relating to how we encourage, develop and, most important, protect creators and their rights. I think that this is a key point that must not be missed in the course of the debate. Not only must we seek to encourage greater contributions from the arts, we must also strive to ensure that creators can trust and rely on solid protection for the fruits of their labour. It is the solid protection of creators' rights that makes today's debate so timely and relevant to me personally, as next week the point that I will be addressing in an Unstarred Question in the House will be the very issue of how we may better protect the intellectual property rights of our talented individuals.
	That said, in today's debate I want to focus on just a few recent developments which may serve to challenge the cultural industries but, if handled properly, could in my view lead to greater opportunities to access and exploit the benefits of the wider UK audience—by that I mean contributing to building human and social capital, and thereby our nation's quality of life. I speak mainly in relation to the recent additions of the Gambling and Licensing Acts to the statute book, and the changes being made in broadcasting to focus on a more regional agenda.
	My first point relates to the practical implications of the new licensing regulations for many of our pubs and other entertainment venues. The Licensing Act is currently in the process of making significant changes to licensing schemes for entertainment venues, and I believe strongly that this will impact on the ability of many of our nation's musicians to contribute to urban regeneration. If—I stress this—these changes are handled in the right way, they can enhance regeneration. Let me explain. The new licensing regulations will have an obvious knock-on effect for musicians who perform in our pubs and our clubs right across the country.
	Much has been made of the well-publicised 24-hour drinking aspects that the new licences may eventually bring into existence. But what is most at stake and of key importance here to our artists is a general awareness of the fundamental requirements of the new licences. In particular, the Musicians' Union has expressed concern that venue owners are simply unaware of the obligations placed on them under changes to the licensing law which requires them to have filed their new licence applications by 6 August of this year. Failure to do so means increased expense, complexity and delay. As John Smith, the general secretary of the Musicians' Union has said:
	"There is a real danger that the former '2-in-a-bar' venues will not opt for entertainment to be included in their new licences because of fears of onerous administrative burdens. If we lose these venues it will be a disaster for grassroots live music making".
	The question is: are the Government doing enough to publicise these new requirements and the deadlines that accompany them? Many have argued that with the advent of 24/7 drinking, our communities will suffer through increased risk of crime and the overall diminution in quality of life. Home Office statistics which show a correlation between binge drinking and crime speak volumes. I believe passionately that much of that risk can be diverted by the promotion of more local live music. Indeed, I have said before in your Lordships' House that "more music . . . equals less trouble".
	Let me give a classic example. Over a four-day period, contrasting between alcohol consumption and trouble at the Bath and Glastonbury festival site, both sharing a similar population figure over the period, the crimes committed at Glastonbury totalled 478 while those committed in a comparable area of Bath amounted to 566. In short, sleepy, sedate and dignified Bath still managed to record just under 20 per cent more crime over the period than the Glastonbury festival, with 120,000 people in a field consuming most of the cider that Somerset could produce.
	Let us have more live music to counteract any negative impact the new licensing laws may bring. Music can act as an effective catalyst for improving the quality of life at a very local level. In short, the Government must do more to advertise and promote these licence changes and the impact they have in order to ensure that a golden opportunity to encourage and develop new, vibrant, creative live music is not lost.
	The record industry also plays a key role in contributing through the arts to urban regeneration. Let us take EMI's involvement in the regeneration of the Roundhouse, that legendary building in Camden, north London. The Roundhouse is being redeveloped into both an international performance centre venue and a state-of-the-art creative centre where up to 10,000 young people a year will be able to explore their creativity, learn skills and gain experience to achieve their full potential. EMI's support will go towards the creation of professional recording facilities and performing space in the creative centre. Opportunities of this kind for young people can do more than directly affect those passing through. If successful, they can also help to break the cycle of disadvantage in the surrounding community.
	I turn now briefly to the fundamentally important subject of broadcasting and the changes currently being made to the way in which our national broadcasters select their talent and run their businesses. Both the BBC and Channel 4 are currently involved in well-publicised actions to cast their nets further in order to draw talent from and move closer to the wider regions of the UK, away from the capital. Small, independent producers feature highly on this agenda. Channel 4's Creative Cities initiative is a programme of activities taking place throughout the UK. It includes film and television production and off-screen innovations and partnerships. As it currently stands, Channel 4 commissions work mainly from small to medium-scale producers in key regional cities all around the UK. In a typical year, around £115 million is committed to original creative content in urban areas outside London. For one example, the show "Hollyoaks" employs hundreds of people in Liverpool. There are, however, wider incentives for the broader community in conducting more business through regional external producers—the companies and employees involved often have strong personal commitments to the regions in which they live and work, and under the new terms of trade between producers and broadcasters, the IP rights reside with these producers. That means far greater potential for enhanced social and economic development and regeneration for micro-economies outside London.
	There are all kinds of projects leading to urban regeneration through collaboration between broadcasters and key regeneration agencies and the community working together. One amazing example is the Castleford project in West Yorkshire, whereby Channel 4 is working in close consultation with the local community and agencies on 11 regeneration schemes in and around Castleford, a former mining town. Some of the schemes focus on improving the environment and some on supporting neglected neighbourhoods. The best thing about it is that the community has said what it would like rather than somebody—ergo the Government—telling people what is needed.
	The BBC also has strong commitments to various schemes of regionalisation and agrees that healthy competition in the supply of programmes tends to deliver the best results for audiences. It is so important that the BBC honours its obligations to devolve a good proportion of its programming operations to cities outside London. BBC Bristol, which houses the BBC's successful Natural History Unit, is a good example of this.
	Although it is clear that there is a real drive in the broadcasting industry to push into the regions and devolve production and facilities, there is a need to focus on the number of small independent producers and encourage them to build and grow in these communities. The pool of talent from which independent production sources are drawn should be as deep and as wide as possible to catch a varied array of talent and diversity in terms of both skills and geographical location.
	On a last note, I should mention the initiative recently taken to create a first super-casino in a region as yet undecided. This offers a golden opportunity to pilot a scheme, not just for a gambling centre, but for a centre which incorporates novel media and cultural benefits. Not only would such a drive be likely to unearth new and more diverse talent, but would also benefit the public as a whole and generate increased levels of public interest on a range of levels.
	I have spoken about music and licensing, broadcasting and gambling and the ongoing innovations in each that present us with tremendous opportunities to develop and regenerate our urban communities. Indeed, I have referred to just a few of the many amazing initiatives currently in place which are genuinely contributing to educational and employment opportunities. At the end of the day, regeneration is about a nation's people. The economic benefits are worth while, the social benefits are incalculable.
	In conclusion, therefore, I want to encourage the Minister to call on his Government to initiate research into the wider impact on society of our creative industries. All my instincts tell me that the results will prove the worth of the arts as a major contributor to the well-being of our society and, in particular, our urban communities.

The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, with his refreshing opening remarks, the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, has reintroduced an absorbing topic. I admire his commitment, as I am sure we all do, to a more open society in many aspects of life.
	I bring no personal involvement to this debate but I have an artistic family and I recognise it to be a subject of continuing concern and importance. We should all, as citizens, have done more to make our urban environments more attractive and accessible than they are. This cannot be left to planners and officials. The well identified need for access and inclusion brings me straight to the obvious point that the communities most affected must take part in the decision making. I know that from my experience overseas, but I also know that it is easier said than done. Some areas of government are audibly groaning with formal consultations, and they must often wonder how decisions can be made at all.
	It is best done through partnership. Good practice in urban regeneration often comes through the efforts of smaller, voluntary and faith-based organisations, which ensure that there is genuine community involvement. I know that my noble friend Lord Best has particular experience here. I have seen examples myself in Camberwell, Coventry and elsewhere.
	All the authorities concerned with urban regeneration are now at least using the language of inclusion. The Arts Council and the Housing Corporation with the help of Aston Housing Consultancy launched an excellent document last week called Creative Neighbourhoods, which clearly demonstrates the results that can come from good two-way communications. English Heritage, in various recent documents, also seeks to inspire people and encourage them to get directly involved. The historic environment is not always ideal for touchy-feely policies, but English Heritage and the Heritage Lottery Fund are succeeding in opening more historic landscapes and townscapes which give people pride and pleasure as well as physical access.
	Anyone who has walked through the Rope Walks area of Liverpool or parts of Brick Lane must feel that public money has been well spent. The noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, mentioned the knock-on effects of flagship projects such as Tate Modern, which has transformed the community of Southwark as well as the physical landscape. I am glad that the noble Lord also added the contribution of Sir Giles Gilbert Scott.
	As a nation, we are lucky to have benefited from immigration over the centuries which has endowed our cities with particular characteristics. This is now called diversity, but the word should not diminish the intrinsic economic, social and cultural value of those populations. We do not do enough to proclaim them. In the arts alone you often find that the incoming communities—say Afro-Caribbean or Latin American—have their own strong cultural traditions. They should participate more directly, not just in festivals and events, but in the planning and execution of housing development and regeneration. This is especially important where unemployment and work–poverty rates are higher in areas of inner cities where there is a greater concentration of these communities.
	Last year's DCMS report, Culture at the Heart of Regeneration, endorsed the value brought by the arts and culture to communities in regeneration areas across the country. The report, which has some excellent case studies, gave public recognition to the considerable role played by the arts in creating well designed, distinctive and enjoyable places for people to live and work. Again, the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, referred to these.
	Earlier last year the Government launched their Sustainable Communities Plan—a £38 billion programme to tackle housing shortages and to support the economic renaissance of the North. This investment will transform our landscape and create entirely new communities. In this the Government, I am glad to say, have emphasised the importance of good design and the impact that this can have on new housing and town-planning schemes.
	However, as I discovered while discussing an Urban Development Corporation order in Northamptonshire last year in this House, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is not the most obvious place or the best vehicle for local consultation on essential services, let alone on the arts. I do not believe, from what I hear, that the ODPM has adequately addressed or endorsed the role of arts and culture, and I would be interested to know what others feel about that. Nor, in the words of the DCMS report, has it "embedded" cultural facilities and activities in the heart of the new "sustainable communities".
	At an arts and housing seminar last week, on the other hand, the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, spoke passionately about the heroic history of house-building in this country, from Victorian housing philanthropy to post-war reconstruction. She spoke of the need to consult local people about their needs and to encourage local participation in areas undergoing massive change. She spoke highly of the role that the arts can play in this process. So, perhaps the Minister will tell us which of these is the correct scenario today.
	Many people would like to see more evidence of joined-up thinking between at least seven government departments, so that the DCMS principles are acted upon. This means, in the jargon, mainstreaming the arts and culture into regeneration planning at the outset to ensure that there is sustainability for arts projects once the initial funding has disappeared, and that they are appropriately linked to other regeneration and economic activity.
	We also need more effective working between national and local government. The current review of planning legislation could do much to support the arts and culture as part of new capital development schemes. Guidance on planning obligations and the use of Section 106 planning gain—that is from the 1990 Act—could recommend the "creative" use of contributions towards the revenue costs of cultural activities, such as festivals or events, or the long-term support of arts organisations. This would promote sustainability and long-term benefit rather than one-off capital contributions.
	There need to be better links across the public sector to promote the central position of the arts and culture, in, for example, the local development frameworks and regional spatial strategies—the new favourites of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Those must be delivered through effective local and regional partnerships.
	Finally, we need to address the skills shortage in this area, in managing and delivering high quality arts projects in regeneration programmes. The Arts Council regionally is developing relationships with the new centres of excellence in regeneration, which are run by the RDAs, to train regeneration experts to appreciate culture, and cultural experts to understand regeneration. Artists also need specialist training, so that they can work more effectively in regeneration settings such as housing, hospitals and schools. Further work in that area needs to be developed with the Learning and Skills Council and the appropriate sector skills councils. Equally, local authorities must have properly resourced arts and culture departments so that there is appropriate support and expertise within local government to advise and deliver arts projects for their local communities.
	So there is a lot to be done—and each step of the way we need to keep in sight the quality of the project and maintain the highest standard of art and design in all areas of the country, old and new, urban and rural, so that we can rightly be proud of a heroic tradition of community building.

Lord Jones: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, for initiating this debate. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, is in his place. I recollect that when he was Secretary of State, he received my deputation about the Royal Liverpool Philharmonic Orchestra. He was most courteous—and I recollect, despite the many years that have past, that in his ministerial room he displayed a very large and colourful John Piper landscape. I always thought that he was a genuine Minister for the arts—if I may say so.
	There is always a danger in attempting to advocate the arts via wider economic or social impacts. Also, regeneration cannot solely be about the physical and flagship buildings. The brutal fact remains that if a city has a deplorable housing problem and its citizens are crying out for help, the inclination and duty of the elected council is surely to face up to the priorities of local families before the opera house is built. However, the great city of Liverpool might be unique. Today its arts and regeneration are marching successfully in step; yet a generation ago, the city and its surrounds faced bewildering social and economic problems as its industries and docklands faltered. Nevertheless, in 2008, that reborn city will be European City of Culture, which in itself is a magnificent achievement; after all, the competition was of the highest quality, and the accompanying conditions were some of the most stringent imaginable. In truth, in Liverpool and Merseyside generally, councillors, chief officers, the agencies and Members of Parliament have been a superb team, and the city's growing success is well earned.
	In 2000, the area of Kensington in Liverpool was listed among the top 1 per cent of the most deprived wards in England and Wales. The Kensington regeneration partnership is now the largest of the 39 "new deal for communities" initiatives in this country. It is providing the resources for the renewal of the area within Merseyside's wider regeneration, supported by its objective 1 status and the development of the north-west region.
	In September 2003, the Royal Liverpool Philharmonic Orchestra launched the Music for Life project in partnership with the Kensington regeneration partnership. Music for Life is a unique five-year education residency by the philharmonic, representing a long-term commitment to the community of Kensington and to its progress in regeneration. The project has provided access to music and sought to develop musical excellence when financial limitations might otherwise prohibit such activity, by building an adoptive relationship between each school and one musician, by purchasing instruments and providing tuition, by exposing children and their families to a breadth of musical experiences, and by encouraging the community to recognise and exercise its entitlement to culture. At the completion of its second year, Music for Life is broadening the cultural awareness of the pupils and their families and tapping into the resources of creative organisations at local, regional and national level, and ensuring a deepening level of trust in the community throughout the regular presence of our LPO musicians.
	The impact of such sustained interventionist activity is significant and beyond the delivery of the music curriculum. Pupils' education attainment, behaviour and well-being is improving as a result. The Royal Liverpool Philharmonic Orchestra is a society born of civic pride and the belief that music is a civilising influence, and that good can only spread from commitments such as the orchestra has shown.
	At this juncture, I should declare an interest as an honorary life member of the philharmonic—indeed, as a subscriber since the late 1970s—and as a friend of Merseyside Museums and Galleries. It is the case that Liverpool is frequently cited as the capital of north Wales. We believe that the orchestra is world-class; Maestro Schwarz's baton does impress. The board chairman, the distinguished Mr Roger Lewis, calls upon the able talents of the chief executive Michael Elliott and secretary Mr Peter Bounds. We have forged special links with Classic FM, to mutual advantage. Many people now believe that the orchestra is a standard-bearer for the arts.
	The challenge remains for regeneration, however. The Indices of Deprivation 2004 show the scale of the challenge. Liverpool was ranked number one out of 354 local authorities on overall deprivation, and it is ranked the second most deprived local authority on income and employment—as by government statistics. It is the case that some impacts related to the infrastructure can be measured relatively easily. For example, the National Museums Liverpool project was calculated to create 50 permanent new jobs and 500 jobs during construction. The economic impact of those new jobs and the associated multiplied effect within the local economy could be estimated quite easily. What is harder to estimate is the impact of increased visitor numbers to the World Museum Liverpool or Liverpool's Walker Art Gallery. At the World Museum Liverpool, the transfer to user friendliness is complete. There is now fun and laughter inside that distinguished museum—and, as a distinguished Merseysider told me, at last it is starting to look like a city of culture.
	Perhaps we can say at this junction that the arts and the cultural offer of a city is becoming a key element of city competitiveness in this new century. As such, it is a feature in securing footloose industries in a very competitive atmosphere. Maybe in that respect, the arts play a part in retaining employment and attracting new employment. The National Museums Liverpool is the biggest cultural employer in the north-west; it has almost 600 staff employed this year. It might be true to say that National Museums Liverpool has acted as a catalyst for city regeneration since the 1980s.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, before this debate started I recalled to myself with pleasure the delegation of the noble Lord, Lord Jones, a dozen years ago on behalf of the Royal Liverpool Philharmonic, but he has been characteristically kind in alluding to it himself. It is an event that I recall well. What he equally characteristically did not say today was how eloquent he was on that occasion in its cause, as, indeed, he has been on this occasion also.
	Without the smallest smidgen of hypocrisy I am happy to do obeisance at the feet of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, for having secured this debate and for being so exactly the right person to open it, though I should have been just as happy if the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Hudnall, had done it before she was robbed of her slot by the arrival of the general election. The noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, is one of nature's cultural ambassadors. It is a splendid chance that in the midst of all his other educational shuttle diplomacy he should have landed on his feet today and hit the ground running. He is worthy of that national anthem ascribed by T H White in The Once and Future King to King Uther Pendragon,
	"Long Live King Pendragon Long may his reign drag on".
	I thank him for his kind reference to myself.
	Although my remarks will not be entirely friendly to the Government, I would also like to congratulate the DCMS on having commissioned research from academics at the London Metropolitan University, appositely based in areas where urban improvement is a priority, on the contribution of cultural regeneration in the UK, and on having followed it up with a consultation of its own on this subject, to which it published the responses in February this year. The first document seemed to me not only helpful in identifying a whole quarry of evidence on this subject but also relevant in its concluding recommendations, even if academia caused the language to be somewhat jargon-laden.
	The second DCMS document dated June 2004 prefaced its questions by saying that there had been,
	"an explosion of cultural activity"
	in the previous 10 years. As I had only been in office at the DCMS—as it then was not—for the first month of that decade, the only credit I can claim directly, more for the previous government than for myself, was the creation of the department itself. My two years in office were spent in taking one small grandfather department and the hitherto disconnected sections of five other Whitehall departments, all of whom came with their divergent Whitehall cultures and had never worked closely together previously, and forging them over the two years into a single common instrument in a new building.
	As events unfolded I had a mild regret that I was not afforded a third and final year to determine what we were going to do with the instrument once we had it, but it is one of the tenets of my party that we live in an imperfect world, and I make no complaint about that. It does, however, draw from me admiration for what the Government have set in motion in the area of this debate. If I have a single niggle, it is that they have publicised their initiatives too modestly. I have a continuing interest in this subject. My temperamental attitude to incoming information is more that of the scavenger jackdaw than the industrial shredder yet I knew nothing about the DCMS inspired developments I am talking about until I started researching this debate.
	To balance that niggle, let me say that I think the process is as good as the process in Brussels retrospectively to monitor the utility of the cultural initiatives the Community's culture Ministers commission and endorse is poor.
	So far, so good. That epic County Sligo law firm of Argue and Phibbs is, alas, no more, but even their ghosts are not present in this debate on this very worthwhile subject, and it is useful to be challenged by questions such as, "What difference does public art make"? Ten minutes is too short a time to answer that, but to add to specific examples which have already been quoted, I have always myself thought that, regardless of one's aesthetic attitude, the floozy in the jacuzzi in Birmingham had a profound and symbolic significance in indicating the changes the City Council was seeking to make in the city centre.
	On the questions in the second chapter of the DCMS consultation document, I have some prior constituency evidence in Covent Garden and Soho of local community reactions, which is what the chapter addresses. They are not an ideal test bed because the resistance of the community in Covent Garden and Soho to wholesale demolition and redevelopment in the 1960s was powerfully influenced by their centuries old sense that their very architecture was part of their community ethos. Geoffrey Rippon's simultaneous listing of most of Covent Garden had a quality of reactionary conservatism that turned out to be inspired; but I always felt that the street theatre which blossomed in the Piazza, on the very threshold of the actors' church, St Paul's Covent Garden, was a marvellous lubricant to constructive change after the Duke of Bedford's fruit and vegetable market moved out.
	Nicholas Ridley's changes to the use classes order 15 years later in Soho had the less satisfactory effect of banishing centuries-old light industry in craft based activities, but at least the creative industries moved in in their place to sustain the great enriching benefit of inner-city vibrancy.
	I have always liked the remark of Paul Claudel, the French ambassador in Washington at the time of the Wall Street crash, who said at a coincidental soirée on the very first night of the Niagaran descent of the stock market that,
	"between the crisis and the catastrophe there is always time for a glass of champagne".
	This debate is such a glass. But I share the views of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, that the Government are endangering the golden eggs of the lottery by so diluting and manipulating the original good causes that they risk stopping this regeneration in its tracks. The latter is of exceptional importance in itself in the war against anti-social behaviour. People behave in the way they are treated. Give them good conditions and they will respond to them, indeed live up to them. Self-respect applies to communities as well as to individuals.
	We all know how we have got here. The Labour opposition in the Commons in response to the National Lottery etc Bill did not vote for the Bill at Second Reading—they did not vote against it either—in part because of their misgivings about additionality, but did vote for it at Third Reading, which was a proxy index that some of their misgivings had been allayed. That Bill gave 20 per cent of the proceeds to the five good causes. As master masons of the Bill, we afforded the opportunity for Parliament to realign those 20 per cent allocations—quite apart from the Millennium Commission's eventual demise—not only in the Bill but subsequently on the Act. However, we suspected that they would remain intact once their champions realised that what went up could also go down, and that interference with the status quo could be destructive.
	After 1997, the Government rather than Parliament did interfere. Of the 600 responses to their consultation document, 90 per cent were from producer interests who understandably welcomed changes of which they would be beneficiaries. Thereafter, I embarrassed a DCMS Minister of State at Oral Questions in the other place by asking him to remind the House of the definition of "additionality". No names, no pack-drill, but his fig leaf of a reply—more wet lettuce than fig leaf—was that I knew perfectly well what the definition was. A worse index, after the New Opportunities Fund was set up, was that I heard not even from a DCMS Minister but from the Secretary of State for Health—again, no names, no pack-drill—about cancer developments in my constituency before I even heard from the New Opportunities Fund itself. Additionality was dying before our eyes.
	I share the views of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, about these hazards. If I may act in conclusion antiphonally to him, my presence in this debate makes me an involuntary refugee from the Building of the Year Awards at the Savoy under the inimitable chairmanship of my noble friend Lord St John of Fawsley. A year ago when I served under him on the judging panel, we gave a significant business class award to the self-designed new offices of an architectural practice within a stone's throw of Tate Modern, and its attraction to that area was not unconnected with the fact that Tate Modern was there.
	My personal hope for the 21st century is that we get more distinguished new buildings in this regeneration process rather than just makeovers, but that possibility has been happily enhanced by the choice of debate of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, today.

The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I, too, warmly thank the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, for securing this debate on the role that the arts can play in urban regeneration, particularly as it gives me the opportunity to ask the Minister what contribution his department has made to the forthcoming Green Paper. Perhaps he would write to me at a later time.
	Perhaps I might be permitted to quote from some remarks that I made in your Lordships' House:
	"Respect for adults; due deference to adults; and due respect for the experience of adults, must flow from and be associated with due respect and consideration by adults to the needs of children . . . Most importantly, all children growing up with no parents involved in their lives need one person, over the years, to whom they can turn for advice who is always there for them".—[Official Report, 25/5/05; col. 496.]
	The arts can play a crucial role in re-engaging young people who have had poor family experiences and who have every reason to distrust adults. The arts can be a means of encouraging them to begin to work with and regain confidence in adults. On the Continent, a widely used model of work with vulnerable young people and children is the pedagogic model: the pedagogue in Germany and the eastern and northern European countries; the social educateur in France and the south. That involves a good grounding and training for practitioners in the arts or in a craft and a thorough understanding of child development and the emotional needs of children. It includes strong development of their power to be advocates for children.
	I draw noble Lords' attention to a project that seems to capture many of those qualities, which runs in the south east of London. The project is Kids Company, and it was established in 1996 by Camila Batmanghelidjh. I quote a letter written by Professor Aynsley-Green, a paediatrician at the Great Ormond Street children's hospital, and now the Commissioner for Children:
	"I have had a long-standing interest in the work of Kids Company . . . From these insights, I have the highest regard for Camila herself (especially for her visionary leadership and enthusiasm) and for the work that she is engaged in through trying to help the most severely affected end of social disadvantage".
	I visited Kids Company last year, and I was particularly interested in a disused mobile vehicle—perhaps a mobile library—in which they had established a number of installations by individual children. Each child had their own installation, which might include an item of poetry from them, or some creative writing about their experience. It might include found objects that they had placed in the cubicle. It was an overwhelming transmission of their experience of their own lives and life with their families. It was later exhibited at the Tate Modern gallery on the South Bank, which the noble Lords, Lord Puttnam and Lord Brooke, and many other noble Lords, referred to and commended. That was one further spin-off of that important new institution. At the climax of the exhibition there was a day of drumming and music-making by adults, which again was a way of showing the esteem in which this was held.
	I met one of the young people, a 23 year-old, who had been engaged with the project for several years. He had spent time in Feltham Young Offender Institution. He had come to the project, and he had been helped to find accommodation by the manager, Camila Batmanghelidjh. When he had been in crisis, he had called her in the middle of the night and she had sat and talked with him. When it was right, she arranged for him to meet his mother and to be reunited with her. At that time, he still had a brother in prison. In that case, no arts were used to engage him, but the project heavily uses arts and every other means to engage disaffected young people.
	In particular, they try to use the local populace, particularly young Afro-Caribbean men, because many of their young people are Afro-Caribbean. I met one young Afro-Caribbean man who was a musician, and he engaged with young people. He would stand with them while they were having a cigarette outside and he would say, "Why don't we make some music together?". He would bring them in and form a relationship with them.
	The funding for this project has been hard to secure over the years because the children refer themselves; they are not referred by local authorities. Thanks partly to the work done by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales through Business in the Community, the Treasury and Mr Brown have recently been prevailed on to find £1.1 million in matched funding to support this project. That is warmly to be welcomed. Several noble Lords significantly support the charity, and I commend it to your Lordships.
	To conclude, the arts can play a vital role in regenerating neglected communities and in reaching out to young people—a vital role indeed. I emphasise that one needs to consider how one can sustain the relationships that are gained by using the arts for not just two or three months; but perhaps one, two or three years. The young person can be engaged through this programme. We therefore need to give the best professional support to people working in this area so that they can sustain relationships with difficult-to-manage young people. Will the Minister write to me on what contribution the DCMS has made to the youth Green Paper?

Lord Best: My Lords, I too am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, for this debate, which I found fascinating. My organisation, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, is a relative latecomer to the idea that the arts can play a central role in the renewal of cities and neighbourhoods in need of regeneration. We used to see the arts as peripheral, even a distraction, to our interests in poverty, homelessness and other social problems, but we do not think like that any more; and like all converts we now feel passionate about the lessons we have learnt.
	It seems that there are three main ways in which the arts can make a mark in changing places and changing lives. First, there are the exciting opportunities to revive local economies and boost the morale of cities through prestigious arts and heritage projects, as described by the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam. That approach has put places like Gateshead on the map with long-term job creation and a new civic pride. Liverpool will use its European Capital of Culture status to boost tourism and help retain and attract talent for the city.
	But that kind of benefit from arts projects is not where my foundation has concentrated. At the other end of the spectrum it is clear that local arts projects, often through schools, theatres and museums, can transform the lives of individuals, like the Music for Life project in Liverpool, to which the noble Lord, Lord Jones, referred. There is Bradford The Musical, of which I am a patron, in that city, which has a huge live performance tomorrow evening.
	Participation in all kinds of arts-based projects can boost self-confidence, unlock hidden talent, make people job-ready, provide inspiration and personal satisfaction—even in prisons, as the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen, has explained. But those benefits from local arts projects in the redemption and transformation of the individual is not where my foundation has made its discovery.
	For us, the special way in which the arts can have a magical effect lies in the impact on community life in depressed and disadvantaged neighbourhoods. We have funded community-based projects of different kinds and it has become apparent that, particularly in terms of value for money, the arts route to social change can have truly amazing results.
	Perhaps I could describe one recent experiment that we organised. In each of three places—York, the London Borough of Lewisham, and Wakefield—we provided £100,000 over three years through the local authority to support a community initiative of its choice on a troubled council estate. In York, the funding paid for a very good community development worker. In Lewisham, two part-time youth workers were engaged in a helpful way. But it was in Wakefield that our modest investment achieved by far the biggest impact. There, a community arts project was chosen and a whole variety of estate-based arts activities was pursued.
	In Wakefield, a video film was made by the young people on the estate, a mosaic path was designed and laid out, dance sessions were organised with an inspiring drummer, there was an exhibition of paintings, and so on, including the creation of a herb garden—which, I admit, is pushing the definition of arts pretty far. What impressed us so much was that all those projects brought together older and younger people of different cultural backgrounds, and parents who had not talked to each other before.
	Good neighbourliness has to be based on people knowing one another, seeing what talents each other can bring, and doing something positive together. Although community-based work often involves bringing residents together for meetings on an estate, the participants tend to be of a particular age and outlook, and the subjects for discussion are often somewhat negative, such as complaining about some aspect of a service that the council is not delivering. Community arts, as in the Wakefield project, which became "The Art of Inclusion" programme, mean that people are learning about each other in a positive and fun context.
	We have been hugely encouraged by the reaction to our Wakefield work from Barnardo's, the children's charity, which operated on the same estate. So impressed was Barnardo's that it has now made community arts with young people a priority for its work across the country in different estates on which it operates.
	The community arts worker in Wakefield, Judi Alston, who achieved a huge improvement in relationships across that difficult council estate, illustrates the programme's outcomes with a story. She was walking with an elderly resident past the estate's corner shop. As they passed, she called across, "Hello there, Johnny", to which the reply came, "Oh, hello there, Mrs Whatever". As they moved on, the elderly woman said to Judi Alston, "Before you started working on this estate, I used to be afraid to go past the shop; I was frightened of all the boys hanging around outside and it was safer to stay at home. But I've got to know Johnny and some of the others, seeing them in that play and at the flags event. Oh, we are all friends now". Community arts can be the catalyst for creating community links and reducing anti-social behaviour, crime and the fear of crime.
	The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has shown an interest in putting community arts projects in deprived areas on a more consistent and stable footing. I suggest that the ODPM's substantial regeneration programmes should really incorporate the promotion of arts projects at the community level, as one component in getting communities back on their feet. The many millions of pounds available to regeneration partnerships, such as the New Deal for Communities, afford the opportunity for an arts ingredient to be a matter of course within the big budgets for neighbourhood renewal.
	The Home Office has an interest too, with its emphasis on citizenship, social cohesion and curbing anti-social behaviour. Liaison is needed with the regional arts councils, the Big Lottery Fund—it is interested in low art as well as high art—and the Department for Education and Skills. That brings me to my two key suggestions, which cover co-ordination and cash for community arts. Across government, there are clearly several interested parties. It would be good to hear from the Minister whether a cross-departmental committee—perhaps involving the Minister in the other place, David Lammy—might not be established to co-ordinate the links between the arts and community regeneration.
	I am very grateful to Tessa Jowell for arranging a meeting last month with representatives covering many of government's range of interests, and it would be more than helpful if the Minister could indicate whether increased inter-governmental collaboration could not be engineered for that work.
	I also make the usual plea for some continuity of funding streams, so that community arts workers are not always on a hand-to-mouth existence, never more than a year away from having to move on. A stable financial regime, in place of contracts that last only one year or even less, would enable work in places like Wakefield to get really embedded in the community, and thereby play a disproportionately useful part in generating a strong sense of community, breaking down hostilities and barriers between generations and between ethnic groups.
	Unfortunately, community arts tend to be the little add-on—some icing on the cake—for places where, on a somewhat random basis, there are local advocates for this approach. Its potential will be unlocked only if central government are able to take a co-ordinating approach which can top-slice a small fraction of the resources that go to urban regeneration programmes. I hope very much that the Minister will be able to respond positively to my hopes for better co-ordination and more stable funding. Then this particular aspect of arts and regeneration—for which we now feel such enthusiasm at the Joseph Rowntree Foundation—can work its magic for hundreds more fragmented local communities.

Baroness Falkner of Margravine: My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, for the opportunity to look at this subject and to hear from such a diverse and distinguished list of speakers. As the spokesman on communities and local government, I do not bring any arts background to this debate and cannot hope to match the expertise of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, but I am part of the other category: I am a member of the public. I hesitate to use the term "member of the public" as I am sure the Department for Culture, Media and Sport would prefer to call us consumers, in the newspeak that is now so much part of its lexicon. My emphasis today will be on the relationship between the arts and regeneration, and their impact on communities. I also hope to touch on funding, as many other noble Lords have done.
	As someone who comes from the developing world, I can bear testimony to the fact that, despite UNESCO's best efforts, the arts are still seen in many parts of that world as an add-on, a luxury that will be contemplated only when schools, hospitals, roads and shiny government buildings have been built. So often it results in sterile cities built on a grid, with straight pavements but no life outside office hours. To find the real city one must go into the old town or centre to find real people going about their business. But that part of town is where the heart of the town is, where the community is located, where life is really lived.
	In the UK, thanks to Victorian housing that has lasted, in some parts too long, we have another kind of problem. In a post-industrial economy, our once great towns and cities have seen stages of economic decline, with the running down of physical infrastructure that increasingly blights the lives of the local community. While those who can "get on their bike" do, the rest of the people stay behind. The challenge for society is not only how we rebuild the physical infrastructure of those places but also how we sew in the social fabric to give people pride in their environment and a sense of belonging to that community.
	Several speakers emphasised the shining examples of how art and culture in general can be a driver of urban, rural—in the case of my noble friend Lady Miller—and economic growth. And they often are. Those examples show that, within two decades, culture-driven regeneration has come to take pride of place in our toolkit for dealing with decay. So does it work across the board?
	Having come here as a migrant, I tend to spend much of my time in the less salubrious parts of cities, where new arrivals and immigrants live cheek by jowl with the indigenous population. But there the difference ends. Those communities share the common problems of low-paid jobs, poor housing, poor health and high crime. For me the role of culture in urban regeneration is best seen when culture creates a narrative for a shared identity and increases people's sense of being anchored in the community. For that to succeed in the small to medium-scale ventures about which I am talking there must be considerable buy-in by local people.
	That buy-in comes best where there is serious consultation and sustained relationship-building across the board, from the town hall, to local groups, planners and the arts bodies. A good example of this is Liberal Democrat-run Liverpool, to which many noble Lords have referred, where the bid for the City of Culture focused on building a consensus on local issues so that priorities could evolve through a conversation in which everyone was involved. And the evidence is already starting to emerge as Liverpool city centre is reanimating the city. Its population has grown from 2,000, 10 years ago, and is now predicted to reach 20,000 by 2010.
	The key stakeholder in this relationship building across the local community is undoubtedly local government. Unfortunately, this Government's joined-up thinking does not go so far as to see that the "buy-in" from the community to its local council must be based on the local council being able to deliver for the community. Yet, year on year, local government's freedom to deliver on cultural services and the arts is squeezed by tight spending rounds. When local government budgets are ring-fenced by central government directions for spending on statutory services, localism goes straight out of the window. As the noble Lord, Lord Best, so clearly pointed out, "local" is essential for community regeneration.
	That brings me to the timely opportunity provided by this debate to raise the question of National Lottery funding. When the lottery was established, many people expressed concern that the principle of additionality be enshrined in such a manner that successive governments could not overturn it. We heard eloquently on this matter from the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville. Now lottery funding is being used to fund MRI scanners in hospitals and fruit in primary schools. Those are sufficiently worthy in their own right and should not be funded by the vagaries of betting revenue.
	Recent press reports indicated that raiding the Big Lottery Fund is to become part and parcel of government expenditure as a replacement for public finances. If that is to pass, it will be all the more troubling, as it will twice penalise disadvantaged communities. It will do so, first, in reducing the pot from which community and charity groups fund local projects; and it will do so doubly, as the greatest purchase of lottery tickets is undertaken by those very communities at the lower end of the socio-economic ladder. So he who pays the piper will no longer even call part of the tune.
	If additional funding for education, health and the environment is needed, it should be borne by the Exchequer and raised through a progressive taxation system. That would be the just and honest way to pay for it. I hope that the Minister will confirm that this will continue to be the case and that lottery funds will remain wedded to the principle of additionality.
	In concluding, as so many noble friends have highlighted, the arts and regeneration are of a piece. They are two components of the same glue that builds social cohesion—the base for a good society. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, for giving us this opportunity to reflect on these matters.

Lord Luke: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, on securing this debate. It seems particularly pertinent that we are discussing this topic, not only in the wake of last weekend's successful Isle of Wight music festival, but in the run-up to the Live8 concert, which is using the talents of creative musicians to raise money and awareness of the dire situation in Africa.
	Your Lordships have, as always, all presented important issues based on personal experience and expertise. In particular, I thank my noble friend Lady Buscombe for highlighting how culture needs a joined-up approach, its importance within education and, particularly, the enormous influence of broadcasting on the young. She also made some particularly telling points concerning the implementation of the new licensing and gambling Acts. My noble friend Lord Brooke, in a delightful speech, as always, told us how the DCMS was formed and he made interesting points about the regeneration of Covent Garden.
	The arts, or what seems now to be called the creative industries, cover a wealth of individual skills and talents. It is a long time since the arts were just considered to be those enacted on the formal stage or something you could admire on a wall. As Her Majesty's Government's website highlights, today it includes,
	"advertising, architecture, antiques markets, crafts, design, designer fashion, film and video, interactive leisure software, music, the performing arts, publishing, software and computer games, television and radio".
	I am sure that there are others, too. Indeed, as I understand it, there is even a feeling in some parts that this definition in itself is too narrow. If a creative industry is one that has, according to the department,
	"a potential for wealth and job creation through the generation and exploitation of intellectual property",
	do not ideas of philosophy, science and the use of mechanics in engineering also fit into that theme? Air liners, some of which are artistically beautiful—like the Comet, as I am sure all noble Lords will agree—or, at least, aesthetically pleasing, may have a practical slant, but effectively their production is a "creative engineering idea" which will, I hope, also maintain economic generation.
	I do not want to digress on a point of definition. It is clear, not only from the department's documents, but by the changes that can be seen on the ground, that arts, in all their rich variety, can bind people together, even though it may be it in awe or loathing. The arts can be used positively to express differences and to contribute to wider social issues. We need to look no further than the other side of the river from your Lordships' House to see how the South Bank—let alone Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle and Leeds—has been regenerated by the arts and architecture.
	Successful regeneration not only puts social, economic and environmental life back into an area but re-creates viable, attractive places which encourage sustained inward investment, particularly through business and tourism. Indeed, your Lordships will be glad to hear that the Lonely Planet backpackers' guide states that Britain is "buzzing", is a "cradle of multiculturalism" and that cities in the provinces have a "palpable sense of excitement". The Lonely Planet goes on to argue that Manchester is one of the country's
	"most exciting and interesting cities",
	and that Newcastle-upon-Tyne has displayed,
	"miraculous powers of urban regeneration",
	as the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, mentioned.
	I much enjoyed a visit to Liverpool last year, which needed, and still needs, more regeneration, but has made an impressive beginning over the past 20 years. It was interesting to hear about the Royal Liverpool Philharmonic Orchestra in an interchange of views between the noble Lord, Lord Jones, and my noble friend Lord Brooke. Liverpool certainly has a palpable sense of excitement, particularly over its forthcoming role as the cultural capital city of Europe in 2008, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Best.
	While this is indisputable praise for what has been achieved to date in these areas, I cannot help but notice the bias towards the north side of the old north/south divide, particularly when one looks at the division of spoils in terms of lottery funding. The Local Government Association reports that twice as many lottery funds go to the north than those that are given to the south. The north is not the only region with problem areas that need regeneration—for example, Margate in Kent, which saw the last of its coalfields close in the 1980's and is still suffering high unemployment.
	The local, er, Conservative council plans to build the "Turner Centre" over the sea in Margate Bay. It is billed to be one of the most revolutionary designs for a gallery to date. Yet, despite the area having the same average household income as west Wales and the north east of England, the Arts Council has offered only one-sixth of the total cost of the project, leaving the local council to raise £20 million itself.
	In light of the new National Lottery Bill discussed on Tuesday in the other place, the Government are legislating to bring 50 per cent of National Lottery funds under its control and to use them to plug gaps in departmental budgets that presumably the infamous 66 tax rises to date since 1997 have failed to fill. As my honourable friend in the other place highlighted, what the Government have actually done with lottery funding is as follows: £231 million has been spent on ICT training for teachers and school libraries; £93 million on hospital equipment; £50 million on renewable energy; £42 million on the school fruit project; and, of course, there was the £45 million that the Government snaffled to pay for the Jamie Oliver school dinners project, trumpeted by the Secretary of State for Education and Skills as the Government's solution to the school dinners crisis. I wonder how many people buy their weekly lottery ticket thinking that the money will be spent on school dinners.
	Such snaffling of funds significantly reduces the amount that is available to the sport, art and cultural works that the lottery was set up to benefit. This appears to be acquisition by stealth of the control of funds, and it is also an erosion of the lottery council's independence. I would like to reiterate the comment made by my noble friend Lord Astor in the debate last week initiated by my noble friend Lord Eccles on museums. He said that there is a distinct and significant difference between public support and political control. If I may be so bold as to suggest, this proposed legislation appears to show a shift away from support of the creative industries and the vital role that they play in local and regional regeneration.
	I must mention at this stage a couple of examples that seem to me to be apt. First, the Guggenheim museum of modern art in Bilbao is a prime example of art bringing increased wealth through tourism to what was previously an area almost completely bereft of art. Secondly, I must also draw your Lordships' attention to the Unicorn project, where a new theatre to bring the stage to young children is even now being built close to Tower Bridge. That will be a very important element in the regeneration of that area of London.
	I would also like to highlight the fact that rural regeneration is just as important an imperative. There are often greater inequalities within regions than between them. I am glad to say that sensitive re-use or promotion of the historic environment through projects by organisations such as English Heritage recognises the importance of history and tradition as catalysts in both rural and urban areas, making the best of what already exists, while installing a strong sense of pride and place which, in its turn, will communicate a desire to visit to potential tourists.
	I was amused by the comment in the department's document, The contribution of culture to regeneration in the UK: a review of evidence, 2004, that,
	"There is less documentation of the failures of cultural regeneration projects, because these are, by definition, continuous and adaptable and therefore less likely to fail in regeneration terms".
	I have to conclude rather rapidly. I have but brushed broadly across an area that we could happily debate all day. It is clear from what your Lordships have said that culture, art and the creative industries have helped to revitalise our country socially and economically at local and national levels.
	Six years ago I initiated a debate on the regeneration of coastal resorts. During that debate many sensible things were said by noble colleagues as to what could and should be done, not least by incorporating artistic influences into the architecture, the style and the construction of new buildings—no more Brighton conference centres please. That is all still true now. Independence, imagination and openness are the key drivers in generating effective activity. Let us hope that they are allowed full rein. I very much look forward to the Minister's reply.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, all these decisions will be independent of government. They will be made by the big lottery fund. As noble Lords know from the newspapers, there are very considerable surpluses in the lottery funds. One has to look not only at the revenue raised each year, but also at those surpluses to understand that what I have said will be possible. I know it is an issue. I wish to reassure noble Lords that the Government believe in the principle of additionality, which has been questioned in the debate.
	In her interesting speech, the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, dealt with something that I believe goes to the heart of the matter; that is, intellectual property rights. As matters develop, it is becoming increasingly obvious that there is almost a need for new law to protect those important and developing rights. I and, I suspect, many other noble Lords look forward to next week's debate when we shall have a chance to discuss that.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, put a very important slant on the matter, asking us to look at rural areas. Being brought up in Suffolk, I saw and experienced the Aldeburgh festival which has a 12-month outreach programme into rural communities to bring in the arts. I absolutely agree with her. She asks about the Audit Commission. Currently the commission is finalising the inclusion of a culture block, as it calls it, as part of the comprehensive performance assessment of local authorities. My view, from a quango that I chaired, is that often local authorities are well ahead of central government in this area. I hope that I have given her a reassurance.
	The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, stresses the importance of partnerships with absolutely genuine community involvement. I agree with that. The noble Earl is right to draw our attention to the real meaning of "diversity".
	Like a number of noble Lords, the noble Earl raised the question of the relationship between DCMS and other government departments. My noble friend Lady Andrews has just gone to ODPM as a Minister. She is very keen on getting the importance of arts in regeneration programmes on to ODPM's agenda and so we will begin to see strong connections between those two departments.
	The noble Lord, Lord Jones, gave a fascinating account of cultural life in Liverpool, which is soon to be the city of culture. When I chaired a body that advised the government on museums, I spent many happy days in Liverpool. The noble Lord is quite right to draw attention to what a vibrant and wonderful place it is in cultural matters.
	The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, gave us the benefit of his considerable experience. He was indirectly responsible for my first job in public life as he was the Secretary of State who dreamt up the Library and Information Commission and I was the first chairman of that commission. I would like to thank him publicly for a wonderfully interesting experience. He said that the DCMS does not shout loud enough about what it does. My experience of a lifetime in the arts is that arts organisations, including DCMS, do shout, but nobody listens. I would be fascinated to hear from the noble Lord—in private and outside the Chamber—whether when he was in the Cabinet his colleagues shared his enthusiasm for the arts. My view is that arts do not appear on the radar screen of too many politicians. That is one of the problems. That is why there is such a wonderful consensus here between the parties, all of which support the arts.
	The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, gave an extraordinarily interesting description of the Kids Company. On behalf of the Government, I can say that we support the importance of arts in reaching children. I shall speak later about creative partnerships and I shall write to the noble Earl about the DCMS contribution to the youth Green Paper.
	My noble friend Lady Massey spoke about Opera North and the arts programme in Brixton prison, which I shall say a little about later. She asked for an absolute assurance that the Government will continue to support the arts, particularly for young people. I can give her that assurance and I shall write to her giving details of all the activities that the Government have initiated or are initiating.
	From his experience with the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, the noble Lord, Lord Best, gave us fascinating, practical examples of how community arts can change community life. He spoke about the need for a cross-departmental committee. I agree with him. I could speak for an hour on the silo mentality in Whitehall, but I had better not. I think that the committee is a good idea and I shall pass it on to Ministers.
	The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, may be a newcomer, but his great experience in the areas in which he has worked will be of enormous value. Among other important points, he mentioned the Standing Committee that has disappeared. I get the impression that all government departments would like to bring it back, but they are arguing about who should chair it. I suggest from the Dispatch Box that the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, puts himself forward as the chairman. With his experience, he would be the perfect person to do that job.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, gave us the perspective of an immigrant. It was very interesting. I agree that culture creates an identity and gives an anchor. It was encouraging to hear what she said.
	I shall deal with many of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Luke, in a moment, but I draw attention to the Turner centre in Margate. It illustrates the very important point that whether a local authority is Conservative-controlled, Liberal-controlled or Labour-controlled, all three political parties believe in the importance of using culture to regenerate. That is good. The noble Lord spoke about the north-south divide. It is a paradox that in the early years the complaint was that too much lottery money went to London and the south coast and the Government acted to make the spread clearer. On that point, we will make sure that the matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Luke, is not reversed.
	Exactly four years ago, I argued in the New Statesman Arts Lecture that to call for a debate on shipbuilding—then, as now, a tiny industry—would be seen as real politics, but to debate the future of music and design, which between them employ more people than steel, cars, shipbuilding and textiles, would be seen as frivolous. Maybe things have changed. Maybe there is now a realisation that our future prosperity may hinge on the very products of this frivolity, on what I called the "economy of the imagination". Indeed, maybe the link is finally being made between a thriving arts scene, vibrant cultural institutions and a robust economy. Maybe we are moving towards an acceptance that culture is not something that stands apart from the real business of the country, but that our cultural and educational institutions are a vital part of modern industrial and economic policy because they produce transferable specific and often highly technical skills that are used in the high-growth private sector industries.
	We are familiar with the statistics for the creative industries. They have been repeated this morning. They are that they produce 8 per cent of GDP, employ 2 million people and have a rate of growth that is double that of the economy. But what is the underlying value of this sector? What are the broader benefits that it brings? What is the relationship between the arts and creativity and the regeneration of our cities?
	If anything is clear from this debate today, it is that the term "arts" is certainly no longer restricted to the noble but rather rigid pursuits of the artistic elite. With that in mind, I recommend that noble Lords read What Good are the Arts? by John Carey, Merton Professor of English at Oxford. The fact that it is published by the firm that I used to work for is of no significance at all. What would John Maynard Keynes have made of all this when he asserted that the arts should provide "few, but roses" when public funding of the arts was first legislated for in 1946? Now we are much closer to the ideal envisaged by Juvenal when he declared that what people really wanted was "bread and circuses", but I think we would expand that to include literary festivals, virtual galleries, creative workspaces, Hollywood, street art and the rest.
	What of regeneration as we know it? There is no doubt that in the not-too-distant past there was a tendency towards the "Field of Dreams" approach, the formulaic working out of what a community needs. Give them a library and a swimming pool and that will keep people off the streets and build the odd museum if there are some local artefacts to gather dust.
	"If you build it, they will come"; I do not think so. Not even "If you build it and keep pouring loads of money into it, they may come" or "If you offer free entrance, they will come". Not any more; not these days, notwithstanding, of course, the success of free access to national museums and galleries.
	There is no doubt that museums, galleries and libraries play an absolutely crucial role in regeneration. Forget the Bilbao effect, we have the Tate Modern effect, the Greater Manchester effect, the Newcastle Gateshead effect and many others mentioned today where great iconic buildings, renovated or freshly minted, are housing cultural institutions that are having an inspirational effect on local neighbourhoods and populations and are bringing in jobs, tourism and investment.
	But it is not only about the buildings and the extraordinary activities that they house; it is also about the creative energy that is being unlocked in communities throughout the land—and that creative energy is being translated into creative industries, productivity and prosperity. Towns as far apart geographically and physically as Folkestone and Derby are putting the creative industries right at the heart of their economic plans for the future. These developments are restoring pride and giving new hope to cities which have seen their proud industrial heritage disappear and their futures undermined.
	For example, Nottingham has taken its lace market and developed it into a vibrant creative quarter, with an emphasis on fashion and design, while Birmingham has taken its historic jewellery centre and expanded it into a centre for 1,500 small buildings, many of which are still jewellery-based and most of which are housed in unique historic businesses. Both cities have looked to their histories to create living areas that are now both relevant and commercial, that make sense to the local population and that provide working space and livelihoods to the emerging creative population—a mainly young population seeking outlets for their energies. Give them studios, not ASBOs, I say. I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, agrees with that point.
	But to expand the demand-side argument even further, the most successful cities are not just concerned with retaining skills and providing a reason for inward migration; they are also actively influencing their local education providers to ensure that the workforce will match the opportunities that are being developed. It makes sense that Creative Partnerships—the educational initiative that seeks to make meaningful links between schools and professional cultural organisations—are being designed and delivered locally and, in some cases, making a truly meaningful local impact.
	In one of these partnerships—the Deansfield High School in Wolverhampton—students have been working with artists, architects and council builders to come up with a regeneration plan for a local site, designing elements of it themselves in consultation with these experts. Most importantly, such an experience may give these students a glimpse into the opportunities that a creative future may hold within their own communities and will go some way towards breaking the cycle—the noble Lord, Lord Best, referred to this—of low aspiration that prevails in many post-industrial areas. Not so much "If you build it, they will come" but "If you let them build it for themselves, they will stay".
	If we are to be realistic, we must acknowledge that our future role in the global economy is not likely to be in conventional mass production. But we definitely have an edge when it comes to creating prototypes and producing the kind of goods that can be effortlessly reproduced and instantly exported. I refer, of course, to the products of intellect and technology that can be zapped around the world with the minimum of cost. Are noble Lords aware that the video game "Tomb Raider"—vehicle for the legendary Lara Croft—originated in Derby?
	There is no doubt that this country leads the way internationally in many of the arts and creative industries. Our theatres are going through a golden age; our orchestras are at the top of their game; our popular music continues to lead the world; and our architects and fashion designers are dominating trends everywhere.
	But we cannot afford to take it for granted that this will continue, not without a real understanding of creativity and the creative industries and how we can harness their power and drive them forward. We cannot rest on our laurels on this. Over the past decade we have won, on average, 21 per cent of the major creative and technical Oscars in Hollywood, but we have consistently lacked a film industry capable of building on this talent. We may have the leading edge in some fields, but others will be quick to exploit them if we do not.
	I welcome the DTI-sponsored investigation that Sir George Cox is leading into how creativity can improve the productivity of small and medium-sized businesses. Again with DTI involvement, we see the small seed of inter- departmental co-operation. I am sure that there will be many useful lessons to be imported from the creative industries that depend on innovation and risk-taking for their survival. But I wonder whether we yet know enough about these creative industries and the issues that may be hampering their own productivity.
	My right honourable friend—soon to be my noble friend—Chris Smith, when Secretary of State at the DCMS, identified the creative industries as a key area for study and development. Along with many people, I feel that this vitally important initiative has dropped out of sight. However, we can take great encouragement from the appointment of James Purnell to the DCMS as Minister for Creative Industries and from the knowledge that he is today setting out his vision for a framework to ensure that our innate creativity can be turned into our long-term competitive advantage.
	I now think the time has come to call on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to initiate a Treasury-sponsored study into the state of our creative industries and what their true value is—not only economically but educationally, socially and on a human level.
	In closing, I thank all those who have contributed to the debate. I am sorry if I have dwelt too much on the issue of the creative industries but I firmly believe, along with my noble friend Lord Puttnam, that it is the heart, the driver, of what is happening. It is the most powerful tool we have for urban regeneration. Of course, the arts themselves are a formidable creative industry. Let us not forget that without the arts—the training, the inspiration and the heritage—there would be no creative industries.

Lord Pendry: My Lords, I thank my noble friend. I would certainly not want any of my words not to be understood, so that was a very wise intervention on the Minister's part.
	I was saying that physical education in 40 per cent of our primary schools was not of a suitable standard. On top of that, 5,000 playing fields had been sold off, with many more sales in the pipeline. So in 1997 the incoming Government had a mountain to climb and have understandably taken some time to implement all the required changes to effect the kind of change necessary to put sport on the footing that it deserves. Enormous progress has been made. Even this week, the Secretary of State for Education and Skills has announced plans to extend school days from 8am to 6pm, which will provide more opportunities for extra-curricular activities, including sport. I am sure that we will see the benefits in years to come and welcome the positive reaction of teachers, and in particular, headteacher unions.
	The delivery of funding is improving, not least as a result of the reform that has taken place at Sport England, which has undertaken a rigorous programme of modernisation. No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Coles, will refer to that in his contribution.
	I know that the current Minister for Sport has had to take some difficult decisions regarding funding streams to ensure that funds are being directed to those in the frontline, not being absorbed by bureaucracy. So too at UK Sport, where its own modernisation process has focused funding on performance ratings, as it targets the sports that can demonstrate that they will do well at forthcoming international events.
	The development of sport within the local community thankfully is now at an all time high. So many successful schemes are being undertaken by various organisations, but I should like to highlight one or two which have impressed me. In the debate on the gracious Speech, I referred to the PE, school sport and club links, which will develop further as schools and clubs integrate into not only the provision but extension of participation by widening the scope of accessibility for young people. That mechanism will not only develop sport but emerging talent. That will encourage lifelong participation and activity.
	I make no apologies for referring to one such scheme funded by the Football Foundation, of which I am president. Buckhurst Hill Junior Football Club, in Essex, had faced closure after an arson attack on its ground. The club was able to build a new clubhouse and purchase the ground from the local council as a result of a grant of £290,546 from the Football Foundation. Now the club is thriving, providing some of the best facilities in the country to hundreds of young people. Its membership has been doubled, with nearly 500 players using the site every week. Participation has escalated. Buckhurst Hill now has a girls' section, running teams between the ages of six and 16. About 250 boys are playing in 16 teams each week, as well as 160 adult male players, accompanied by 25 professionally qualified coaches who run sessions and provide after-school football for local children.
	Local community sport is also important because of its wider benefits. By that I refer to the important impact that sport and physical activity have in improving community safety, health, social inclusion and cohesion. Sport can have many health benefits, including reducing obesity and combating heart disease. Such are the advantages of participating in physical activity and sport that the Government in their public health paper, Choosing Health, point to the use of sport participation and outline measures to promote the opportunities and benefits as a priority. In their health paper, the Government recommend the expansion of the scope of activeplaces.com, the facilities database, to ensure that everyone is aware of the opportunities that exist, which will drive up interest and participation.
	There are also programmes within the Prince's Trust—for example, Positive Futures—and the work undertaken by the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders, which uses sport and leisure activities to engage disadvantaged and socially marginalised young people positively to influence the participants of substance misuse and offending behaviour towards physical activity. Unique projects such as these use the power and popularity of sport to provide professional coaching and competitive games, as well as educational opportunities, training and healthy lifestyle information.
	Those projects are undertaken in partnership with local organisations, the police and youth offending teams to combat antisocial activities within society. A recent survey of the project partners illustrates the potential that those schemes have already shown: 72 per cent believe that anti-social behaviour has fallen as a result of Positive Futures; 80 per cent believe that sport-based activities are more available as a result of Positive Futures; 78 per cent state that Positive Futures helps participants to relate better; and 63 per cent believe that local crime has fallen as a result of Positive Futures.
	Of particular interest to my noble friend Lord Davies of Oldham, who is on the Government Front Bench today, will be the Positive Futures programme in Oldham, which has received a £91,293 from the Football Foundation to develop a programme in Oldham, which is part of Oldham's crime and community safety strategy. It will provide activities for young people between the ages of eight and 16 in several areas identified as socially and economically disadvantaged.
	A scheme based in Manchester draws heavily on the idea of development of sport and the identification of talent. This scheme was originally organised by the head of leisure at Manchester City Council in 1992, but has been spearheaded since by the remarkable athlete Geoff Thompson, who comes from a socially deprived background. I am hopeful that the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, who will make a contribution today, will be able to speak in more depth than I on this subject.
	Football clubs are playing their part in developing community schemes—for example Manchester City, which is to run a ground-breaking project aimed at encouraging disengaged 16 to 19 year-olds to return to full time education or employment. It is entitled Kick Start and is being organised in partnership with Manchester Youth College. A welcomed bridge between community level and elite level sport is the Talented Athlete Scholarship Scheme for young athletes. The Government in their manifesto stated that they have launched,
	"2012 scholarships worth around £10,000 a year each for our most talented 12 to 18 year-olds".
	Scholarships and bursaries can provide the young promising Olympians of the future with access to high quality facilities and sporting services. That is the sort of investment required to enhance the levels of sporting excellence by providing the opportunities that would otherwise not be available.
	It is clear that sport is an important mechanism by way of inspiring and motivating more people to participate. Again, I refer to the Football Foundation, which uses Premier League stars in its ambassador scheme to promote,
	"the work of the Foundation, the UK's biggest sports charity, at the grassroots of the game and highlight the essential role of football in the community".
	I witnessed the launch of one ambassador, Wes Brown of Manchester United, in my home town of Stalybridge, at which many children, mostly girls, were present. Having a "star" at such events generates interest and engages more people in sport.
	What better way to engage more people—children and adults—in sport in the future than hosting the Olympic Games? The Olympics is the epitome of sporting excellence and victory on 6 July would be greatly advantageous not only to London, but also to the country as a whole. There will be tangible benefits, such as thousands of new jobs, a boost to UK tourism and a sporting legacy for the UK, which would be felt by generations to come.
	The country has already shown its capacity to deliver events of this kind and we cannot forget the contribution made by volunteers. Without volunteers sporting excellence would be only a fraction of what it is today. Volunteers play a massive role in national sporting life. The London Marathon relies on 6,000 volunteers and the Manchester Commonwealth Games involved 10,000 volunteers, thus suggesting that the role of the volunteer will be a vital ingredient to the 2012 Olympic bid. The development of sport at local and club level is also dependent on volunteers. Sport is the most common form of volunteering, accounting for 26 per cent of all volunteering.
	In that context, I welcome the recommendations of the Russell commission report, which identified Sport England as a key delivery partner in meeting the aspiration of attracting 1 million more young volunteers. Volunteers have and will continue to make an important contribution to the development of sport and sporting excellence.
	I am also pleased to say that the All-Party Group on Volunteering, headed by Julian Brazier MP, is campaigning for the rights of volunteers following the CCPR survey, which identified eight reasons why people were reluctant to volunteer—the top reason being the blame culture and threat of litigation. Last year, a Private Member's Bill in the Commons sort to provide protection for volunteers in that area, but it fell off the legislative timetable because of the general election. I am pleased that the Government are to bring in a Bill soon to rectify the problems in that area.
	By way of conclusion, I wish to refer to the Cabinet Office strategy document, Game Plan, which has emphasised two major objectives; namely, increasing international success and increasing participation. These are the two interdependent aims that form the backbone of this debate. I therefore urge the House to back the Government in pursuing sporting developments within the community in order to increase the opportunities for sporting excellence in the UK. I beg to move for Papers.

Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, not only for what he has said, but also for what he does week-in week-out as chairman of the all-party sports group in Westminster. He brings most interesting people to talk to the sports committee. We benefit very much from getting together in a non-political sense to talk about sport, in which we are all so interested.
	I was not going to talk about things that are on people's minds now, such as the Olympic bid, because we cannot do much about that except hope for success on 6 July. But it is right to say that in past years we have made some progress through the sports councils of the four countries, the local authorities and the governing bodies of sport generally. With Olympic successes and our fingers crossed for rugby football and cricket in the next few weeks, we hope that all will go well there too. As regards Wembley, is the noble Lord happy with the way things are going at present? Is the £20 million provided by Sport England still safe in the interests of athletics?
	I want to turn, as did the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, to grassroots and talk about leadership—through teachers and volunteers. A good many ills of this country, right down to social deprivation, could be cured if we had much more effective leadership of young people. The problem is being addressed. Sports Leaders UK, which used to be the British Sports Trust, is lead extremely effectively by His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh. The organisation is doing an immense amount to develop leadership through its chief executive officer, Linda Plowright. Courses are held all the time, with qualifications arising from them. Since 1987, some 300,000 youngsters have gained qualifications, and last year 91,000 young people attended its courses. It is important to note that all this is being done at minimum cost, funded largely by charities and sponsorship. The Government might bear that in mind as an example of value for money in terms of funding for sport. Perhaps they might think a little more on giving it additional support.
	Full credit is also due to the Central Council for Physical Recreation, although I was sorry to hear that its chief executive officer, Margaret Talbot, is leaving. The CCPR has being doing a lot of very good things lately; for example, by providing papers for this debate, holding conferences and producing brochures. It represents the sports governing bodies of this country, along with the volunteers who do so much to make UK sport work. Indeed, a line from its recent paper states:
	"Community sport is vital to the growth of sporting excellence".
	We have to start at the bottom if we are to achieve success at the top.
	I believe that sport and recreation can play an important part in the development of character, personality, confidence and discipline in young people, boys and girls. That has to be done partly in school time and in part after school, which is a problem for the education authorities. They simply must find time to give boys and girls the opportunity to participate in sport, particularly in team games, which do so much to develop character. I mention also outward-bound activities such as mountaineering and canoeing, in which youngsters should be pushed to the extreme limit without being foolhardy. They then find that they can achieve something far ahead of what they ever thought possible.
	What is holding us back in this field? Not only are there continual arguments in education about how many hours children can participate in games each week, but also the nanny society seems to taking over. Because of legislation and the threat of losing their jobs, teachers and volunteers are afraid of participating in case a child has some form of accident. I read in the newspapers last week about some of the guidelines being issued by Sport England and, no doubt, by the Health and Safety Executive. They overstep the mark. It really is ludicrous to tell a coach that he cannot take a youngster home after practice in case of later implications of paedophilia. That is ludicrous. We must grow up and accept that people in sport can manage their lives very much more effectively than some of those in officialdom seem to think. So let us hope that the Government will encourage the various bodies to consider again their guidance and to make it more practical and relevant to 2005.
	I do not refer only to health and safety aspects, but also the Licensing Act passed by the Government in the last Session makes it almost impossible for a village hall to have a licence. The enormous cost cannot be borne, and that translates to sports clubs as well.
	It must be of some concern to the Government that 70 per cent of all children give up sport when they leave school against only 30 per cent in France. Part of the reason may be that in the United Kingdom, total funding for sport per head is £21. It is £30 in Germany, £51 in Australia, £76 in Canada and £112 in France. No wonder the French are so enthusiastic about the Olympics when they put so much into basic sports provision in their country.
	I want to mention the lottery. I am desperately disappointed in the Government's attitude to the lottery and in the new National Lottery Bill in another place. We cannot underestimate the immense value of Sir John Major's introduction of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993. Without it, the vast sums of money being spent on sports, recreation, the arts and our history would not be available. Yet as soon as the Government came to power in 1997, they started to change the basis on which lottery money could used. It was quite wrong to take money away from the main causes set out in the Act and give it to education, school meals—that I heard only just the other day—environmental purchases in Scotland and medical equipment, all of which should be provided by the Government through the taxpayer under the scheme of additionality. But this Government are reducing the money available to the original causes in the lottery Act in order to save the taxpayer money. It really is quite wrong, and I hope that when the new Bill comes to this House, we give it a mighty rough ride and perhaps get rid of some of the worst proposals the Government have included.
	I turn briefly to planning issues and school playing fields. In 2002–03, some 1,297 applications were made to change the use of school playing fields for development of one form or another. No fewer than 807 were approved. Thus some 62 per cent of those applications were approved by this Government at a time when they kept saying that they would avoid losing playing fields. Of course they will argue that some were being converted into all-weather pitches or that indoor facilities were to be provided, but by and large a huge number of playing fields have disappeared under this Government.
	Two committees have been appointed to look into this issue, but neither has reported since April 2003, so we are two years out of date on the figures that in any event the Government usually try to smudge whenever I table Questions on them. What are the Playing Fields Advisory Panel and the Playing Fields Monitoring Group doing? How many playing fields have they saved? I want to know because it is a criminal shame that we are losing so many perfectly good playing fields at this time. It is only through the good work of the National Playing Fields Association, which monitors as much as it can and highlights in the media what is happening, that we get even some degree of attention.
	I commend what I have read in the paper today, which is a good move on the part of Glasgow City Council. Although it is quite unusual for Glasgow, it is offering rate relief to sports fields provided that clubs alter their constitutions so that the fields cannot be sold for development. That is good, and I hope that many other councils will do the same thing.
	I must quickly conclude, but must ask: can we not do a little more to help women in sport? The Women's Sports Foundation does first-class work. Indeed, leading sportswomen of this country such as Kelly Holmes, Paula Radcliffe, Denise Lewis, Tanni Grey-Thompson and Ellen MacArthur are making the headlines, but women do not get equal opportunities on television. The media are letting the girls down in this country. I am lucky enough to visit America quite often, and there one sees any amount of women's sport on television. There is basketball, tennis, golf, athletics and rowing, all of which seem to be taken much more seriously than is the case in this country.
	Finally, I say to the Government: for goodness' sake, try to simplify life for people working in sport. They are fed up with the bureaucracy that the various governing bodies provide for them. Let us remove some of the red tape and put lottery money back into sport.

Lord Carter of Coles: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Pendry for initiating this debate on what is an important issue to me as the chair of Sport England and my involvement in a wide range of sporting activities, not least our bid to host the 2012 Olympics.
	Sport is one of the common denominators in our society. It reaches across the barriers of race, class and income. However, despite the fact that participating in sport makes people happier, healthier and builds good communities, we have to face the fact that it is difficult to move people into sport. Therefore, we have to look realistically at the barriers and what needs to be done to effect change. As the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, observed, we must build a structure that begins with participation and then build the pathways through to elite. We will not win in 2012 unless we get the basics right here.
	A lot has been done already and there is momentum in sport, as the daily coverage in the newspapers—and not just the reporting of football—shows. There is a momentum. Journalists are writing about sport. The effect of 2012 is enormous and is giving us the movement that we need.
	Understanding the barriers to participation in community sport is critical if we are to make a difference. Today, 77 per cent of children aged eight to 14 have a television in their room; computer games are prevalent, and children spend hours a day on them; and children are driven to school rather than walk. It is therefore not unreasonable to suggest that the forces of passivity are rampant. Some 80 per cent of children have bikes, but only 2 per cent ride them to school. So there is an issue.
	Secondly, the structure of society is changing. It is changing people's ability to find time in their busy lives. People's lives have changed dramatically. In many places, it is incredibly difficult to find 10 other people to make a football team on a Saturday afternoon. That is caused partly by our working practices. In the south-west of England, 36 per cent of the population work at the weekend because they are active in the tourism, leisure and retail industries and in caring. That makes the situation very difficult, but people are finding alternative ways. No longer do we have great workplace factories with playing fields. We are seeing a deconstruction in sport.
	These problems are common to most developed countries—Britain is not alone in facing them—but whereas participation levels are a challenge everywhere, we in Britain face a particular problem. We are behind our major international comparators, especially the northern European countries.
	The question of how that happened and what should be done to remedy it has been the subject of enormous debate. There have been various initiatives and the problem has been looked at, but the problem has existed over the years. Now, however, for the first time, we are beginning to get a clear understanding of what to do and the need to create diversified and diverse answers to these problems. There is not one central monolithic solution but a series of solutions.
	As other noble Lords have observed, we need to start at the beginning and look at the school sports system. As has been said, in the early 1980s and the 1990s, school sport went into a steep decline for a number of reasons. After 1997, however, the Government set about reversing that decline. With enormous effort in the late 1990s and enormous investment now, we have seen that decline reversed. Critically, the first plank in the sports system has been restored. The rotting floorboards have been torn up and we have something firm on which to build.
	Having addressed that issue and seen momentum, we now have to turn to what to do next. The noble Lord, Lord Monro, has rightly commented on the colossal drop-off after formal education. Some 60 to 65 per cent of those aged 11 to 15 participate in sport, but the figure drops to 25 per cent in the 16 to 24 age group. "Cliff effect" perhaps summarises the situation. Participation stays pretty flat thereafter until, like many noble Lords, people get into their sixties and are able to do a little less.
	The situation is the same in every country. Young people, especially young women, discover other pressures. People want to do other things. In Britain, however, we have a steeper drop-off rate. Finland, which has been very successful, has maintained participation at 52 per cent. Germany and Canada—and France, as has been observed—are all doing better than us. We are at 21 per cent and we need to do something about that.
	The key is to face up to the issue and not to be in denial about it. We have looked at international best practice and seen what works in other countries. We are setting about trying to create a systemic and systematic answer to the problem.
	Sport is full of initiatives. There is no end of schemes that act on one issue at a time. However, we are looking to design a system that can address the issue in a big way. The first thing we need to do is deal with the tide of passivity. We need to get proactive messages out there—the message that activity in sport is good. That is being done in Germany and Canada. In the north-east of England, a pilot called "Everyday Sport" is underway. The early indications are that the programme is starting to drive behaviour.
	However, it is no good coming up with initiatives that last a year or two after which the funding disappears. We need programmes that last long beyond one spending review settlement. The Germans have a very successful campaign called Sport ist Gut. It has run for 20 years and changed how people behave. In Canada, over 10 years, the Canada on the Move campaign and other campaigns have helped to increase participation in sport at the rate of 1 per cent a year. It is critical that we give people information. Investment in schemes such as Active Places and interactive databases for sports centres mean that young people can now go online, find out where the nearest facility is and go and participate.
	After we have that piece right and have the encouragement, we need to build the pathways. The critical pathway is from schools into communities and clubs. That has been referred to. Countries such as Germany have got that right over a longer period. Again, however, the Government recognise the need to do something about the issue. The increasingly successful programme of getting PE into schools and clubs—the PESSCL programme—is building those critical links, making sure that when people go from a very structured society in school into an unstructured world, there is a link for them to carry through.
	After we have got that right we have to find somewhere attractive for people to go and practise sport. Expectations have risen. People do not want to send their children to play on dog-fouled, dirty, waterlogged football pitches. They do not want to play themselves in such places. We expect better. In many parts of the country, that has been solved by investment, and in many parts of the country it has been private investment. Were it not for the nearly 1,800 private health care clubs that have been built in the past 10 years, participation rates in this country would have fallen back quite dramatically. Those private operators need all the encouragement they can get by relaxing planning to enable facilities to be built where they are needed—not where planners would like to put them but nobody would use them. That point requires attention.
	Community sport relies on volunteers. As we have heard, 26 per cent of all volunteers are engaged in sport. We need to find ways of encouraging—and the Russell Commission is very strong and helpful on this—those who are prepared to volunteer.
	I should like to share an inexperience. Last Saturday, I went to a small football club in Hertfordshire called the Hormead Hares. Four years ago, four people got together in a rather run-down part of a village in a rural community. Between them, they have created 17 teams for children aged five to 16. It is a wonderful achievement. Two hundred children play there. There was no investment whatever; they built the pavilion themselves. But now they need help, and the help is there. They have applied to the Football Foundation and other organisations. The help is there, but we have to ensure that we get the money into the right hands. The point, however, is that it is these people who are changing things at the grassroots level and we need to support them.
	What happened in that community can be measured. First, the community came together to solve the problem. Secondly, there is evidence that crime was reduced. Thirdly, and most importantly, young people were given a sporting legacy. We need these clubs. We need the pathway from club to elite sport. Reference has been made to the TASS scheme and other such schemes. The interventions are being put in place to move people up that critical pathway.
	I have touched on the issue of infrastructure. In recent times, we have faced the problems of a decaying and crumbling sporting infrastructure. A lot was built in phases—some in the 1960s—and is now very old and needs replacing. At national level, there has been some success. We are building Wembley. There were beneficial effects from the Commonwealth Games in Manchester in terms not only of infrastructure but, above all, in regeneration. It is notable that east Manchester and the city have had a major boost from the effect of sport. And we hold high hopes for 2012 and what it will do not only for sport in this country but for regeneration in the east side of the city.
	At community level, a lot has been going on. People understand what is needed. I turn to the issue of playing fields. There is a lot of talk about playing fields. Grass playing fields' utilisation rates are relatively low. On a grass playing field you can play maybe three, four or five times a week, but the grass soon wears out. In urban areas that does not work and therefore we must get all-weather pitches where people can play for 70 and 80 hours a week. So it is not just the quantity, it is the type of playing field that we get. Sport England and other investors are concentrating on getting the right answers.
	However, despite all the investment that has taken place, we have the problem of ageing facilities in local government ownership. It is clear that unless we reignite local authorities as a major force in sport, there are parts of the country where there is market failure, where people go unserved. We must turn our attention to that. Discussions are under way to include the cultural block, of which sport is part, in the Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA) mechanism, which guides local authorities' priorities. If it is not in there, it is not measured and local authorities tend not to pay it attention. We have to get this into a "must do" for local government.
	I will show you a sign of how far sport has fallen down local government priorities in some places. In a visit to a local authority the other day, they told me they had 154 KPIs—the measurement tools for local performance—and in their priority list sport was 132. We have to turn that round; we have to put sport higher up that list. The Government have set us a target of increasing participation in sport by 1 per cent a year. They have very clear views on elite success. Momentum has started; reforms have been taken through. UK Sport and Sport England have been reformed; governing bodies are reforming quite dramatically; so sport is on the move. The prize to give it that final boost is to win the bid for 2012. It will help us to continue to transform that landscape. We are now, I think, only 19 days away. We have high hopes.
	All those things coming together give us the opportunity to move people into happier, healthier, community-aware lives, and it is a challenge I think everybody in sport relishes.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, this afternoon I feel very much the club player among a glittering collection of former Olympians, but I think that we would all agree that most of us became sports enthusiasts in our early childhood. Equally we would agree that for every national hero there are thousands of players who compete simply for the love of the game and do not wish to become national achievers. As my noble friend Lord Monro said, it starts at the grassroots, from the bottom up, and is stimulated by the local community in what it has to offer. So it is through schools and clubs that we end up with elite sports.
	In modern parlance, "sports" covers many aspects. It is interesting that we have a sports Minister and not a games Minister. The dictionary, however, puts it the other way round—defining "game" as a "kind of sport", a "contest for recreation", or a
	"competitive amusement according to a system of rules".
	But there can be no doubt that sports and games over many years have formed an important part of British life. The Middle Ages boasted of jousting, hunting and archery, the latter of which still attracts many people.
	But, since my early childhood, how times have changed within our sporting clubs and activities. Sport then was very much amateur, such as Wimbledon—which is coming up shortly—where all the players were amateurs and there were no professionals. Indeed, that degree of expertise and hope has altered the way in which young people regard sport today. They look to the professional players; they see the vast wages that many of the professional players have, and they look at the sponsor money that comes to those higher achievers.
	Equally, sport has produced for the Government a lot of money in its own right. It would be interesting if the Minister could tell the House how much money the Government receive in taxes every year from sporting activities. If we leave aside the gambling aspect, there must be hundreds of millions collected in corporation tax, VAT on ticket sales, income tax on the salaries of professional players, to say nothing of the more oblique income generated for the state from such things as fuel duty on sports-related travel.
	Can the Minister also tell us how much money is paid out by the state to support activities, and how much money for national activities comes from the lottery? Noble Lords have mentioned the lottery and I will return to it later.
	Money raising associated with sport is not confined to the Government. Many sporting heroes go to inordinate lengths to raise funds for charitable purposes as well as promoting their own sport. As I speak, a dedicated band of famous cricketers is leading the Ashes Walk. It left from the Rosebowl in Hampshire on Monday and will visit every one of the Test cricketing grounds in England and Wales in the time it takes to reach the end of the Ashes series. Anyone can walk part of the way with them for a fee and they are attracting sponsors. The funds raised will be used in particular to promote cricket in inner-city schools.
	Although I have a professional tennis-coaching qualification and at one time ran a tennis school, I propose to talk mainly about amateur sport and its impact. Most children at some stage enjoy playing sports that require some physical input, but some children are put off early at schools because they are not included in team games. But most of them will have the chance to play rounders in the playground, perhaps have the joy of being selected to represent the form in an egg-and-spoon race or a three-legged race, or to participate in the more structured competitions between schools and within the house groups of their own schools.
	Nor is it always necessary to get that enjoyment in team games. That is something I would like to talk about at greater length because predominantly noble Lords have talked about the bigger team games. I know of many young people who have revelled in cross-country running—something, certainly, that I did not wish to do—cycle racing, dressage or show jumping. There is a whole range of water sports as well as swimming. I pay tribute to the many volunteers other noble Lords have referred to who give of their time freely, week on week, who help to run pony club camps, Outward Bound—mentioned by my noble friend—and other activities.
	I would like to touch on an individual event, which can be a team event; namely, swimming. Recently my granddaughter was very proud that her school qualified for the national finals in a relay event in Sheffield. We went with no hopes of seeing any of them achieve a medal because the school is not known for its swimming. They managed to qualify for the final, in which they did their best but technically came in fifth. Much to their amazement and joy—and there is a lesson in this—they were raised to become third because there were two false starts by two of the teams. The lesson is that you should never give up because you might be a winner at the end of the day, and the lesson for the teams that lost out is that you should not cheat.
	Swimming is a sport in which many can participate who are not physically able to participate in some of the other sports that we have mentioned this afternoon. I give credit to all who help with disabled sports because they play an enormous role and have a great importance in the daily living not only of school children but also of people in later life. Our disabled athletes did wonderfully well in their competitions last year.
	Noble Lords have touched on one or two items that I find extremely worrying; that is, the question of litigation and the burden of legislation. For many volunteers who organise clubs and raise money, they have to get licences to do this or be qualified to do that. If they wish to have a fundraising function, they have to seek a licence. Would it not be possible for some clubs to apply for a broader range of events to be qualified under one licence fee, rather than having to do it continuously? Obviously, that would save a lot of money.
	Secondly, on the whole question of getting somebody through the approval system when going through the criminal records, if somebody is already cleared and accepted as a suitable person to help with a particular thing, could that qualification not carry them through other things that they might be able to help with? Again, that is a cost and an extra responsibility—but it seems ludicrous if an individual has to have four or five different clearances through the bureau.
	On thinking about this debate earlier, one began to realise that sporting activities cut across many government departments, schools, universities, colleges, fitness clubs, fitness centres, outward bound activities, and regional and national activities. Our thoughts are focused on the 2012 Olympic Games, for which we hope that London's bid might be successful. But perhaps I am not the only one who fears that the Government failed in the first instance to put their full weight behind the UK application—a decision that may see the games going to Paris.
	I also criticise the Government for their stance on discouraging team sports in schools. It was said at the time that if no one can be a winner, no one should be a winner. That is rubbish; we know when we compete that we are not going to win every time, but if we are not actually allowed to compete in anything, however can we hope to be achievers? Other noble Lords have already spoken about school playgrounds; picking up on that, I must ask the Government if they will stop the closure of school playing fields. Although the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, suggested that many had closed during our term in office, they continue to be closed, and that cannot be allowed to continue.
	Sport and the exercise of the body is an important element in the development of a healthy body and mind. Obesity continues to be a problem, but to be a good athlete one needs to have a healthy and balanced diet. This week on Tuesday, I attended the launch of a charity called Farming and Countryside Education—FACE—here in London. Its aim is to tell young people about food, farming and the countryside within their own school setting, whether it is urban or rural-based. In doing so, we hope not only to encourage them to eat healthy food but to look forward to visiting the countryside. I am convinced that schools can and should do more; healthy eating and exercise, in my book, go together. We must give the new generation a better start in life.
	Equally this week I was interested to call in at VisitBritain, which had an exhibition downstairs earlier. Talking to that organisation's representatives, I heard them highlighting the opportunities that there are in the countryside throughout the UK to continue to enjoy sporting activities, whether it is walking, canoeing or—much more testing—hill climbing. There are many opportunities out there for us to have a go at.
	I am sure that this afternoon's debate will draw together fascinating contributions from so many who have had the joy and experience of sport. We are extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, for having introduced this debate. He, like others, will look forward to hearing the other contributions.

Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Pendry has secured this debate today. His support for sport of all kinds is well known. Indeed, I am surrounded by a wealth of talent from sporting spectrum. Many of us have already spoken in debates about the importance of sport, and today gives us the opportunity to relate that to sport in local communities—which in turn can improve aspiration and achievement.
	This morning we discussed in your Lordships' House the issue of arts and regeneration in urban settings—at least, two of us did. While sport and regeneration is not strictly on the agenda today, I should like to make a brief reference to how sport has helped to regenerate communities by bringing in new industry and new building. I am thinking in particular of Manchester, as an unprejudiced northerner; in Manchester, the new sports building for the Commonwealth Games was successfully blended with the industrial landscape, including canals, railway arches and embankments, to create a truly beautiful and impressive new landscape for the city. I hope that if London is selected to host the 2012 Olympics, the lessons will be learnt from that. The people of Manchester are proud of the reconstruction of their city thanks to sport.
	I know, too, that this debate is about achieving sporting excellence, of which I am all in favour. But I should also like to emphasise the importance of sport in communities for fun, fitness and social interaction, though other noble Lords have spoken about that already. We worry about obesity and people not being fit. Everyone who does sport is not going to be a champion or play team games, but that does not preclude them from enjoying sport. Sport is important if it encourages exercise for fitness; I follow on in that from what the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, said—not that I would agree necessarily that learning to lose is a positive thing. I would rather that people kept fit.
	Activities such as walking, yoga, pilates and so on, are increasingly offered in communities, and gym membership is increasing. It would be helpful if schools and facilities for young people, of which there are not enough, would encourage young people to enjoy some sort of physical activity, in which perhaps excellence is not achieved but being good enough is. More people taking part in sport at any level seems a worthy ambition, as well as excellence.
	Sport can have a positive impact on communities in relation to social behaviour. For example, the Karrot scheme in Southwark is a crime diversion project at the Elephant and Castle leisure centre. It was piloted as a half-term sports activity programme, with more than 120 young people attending. Since the summer, regular sessions have been held for basketball, athletics, cricket and football. However, where excellence is possible it should clearly be supported. Sporting excellence starts at the grassroots—or, as the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, would say, at the bottom—which usually means in the community, be it in a school or a club. It needs facilities, coaching and enthusiasm from the community.
	I want to use cricket as an example of how that excellence can be built up—and I declare an interest as a Lady Taverner. That organisation raises money for young people with disabilities to play sport. And yes, I shall be walking for the Ashes. The English Cricket Board and the Cricket Federation are carrying out specific programmes to encourage the game at all levels, for men and women and boys and girls. The English Cricket Board's strategic plan, which is called "Building Partnerships" has a key objective of encouraging participation, especially among young people. It includes commitment to delivering a centre of cricketing excellence within 30 miles of 85 per cent of the population of England and Wales by 2009. It seeks to increase the number of school and coaching sessions to 20,000 by 2009 and to implement a £5 billion English Cricket Board interest-free loan for the development of cricket facilities.
	The BBC sports competitions have involved 100,000 children in 6,000 schools to take part in cricket; more than 14,000 clubs in communities have given rise to 333 accredited trainers; £9.4 million has been invested in focus clubs to improve facilities for young people; lottery money has been put into primary schools; and the "Chance to Shine" scheme aims to regenerate cricket in state schools by providing £50 million over 10 years for facilities, equipment and coaching.
	I turn to the matter of volunteers. Cricketforce was a community-based programme in which volunteers spent significant time and money—around £15 million to £20 million—to undertake major renovations of clubhouses and grounds. More than 665 clubs all over the country took part involving some 50,000 people.
	Other development initiatives from the English Cricket Board involve primary school activities such as Kwikcricket, Howzat, a teaching and learning programme, and the Pride Side, aimed to encourage children aged six and up to have an interest in cricket. And in secondary schools, intercricket (also played in cricket summer schools and coaching programmes) and a county cricket programme for disabled players that has been set up with substantial funding.
	For more talented players there are 800 district squads, 34 county squads, nine cricket academies and, of course, the national academy for cricket, which has improved the game enormously. There is, thus, a pathway from grassroots to senior level. In addition, local communities organise themselves into cricket squads of various kinds.
	These cricket initiatives are unprecedented in recent times and are doing much to improve performances in competitive cricket at county and national level. Getting Australia out for 79 is not a bad start. Somerset beating Australia yesterday is not a bad start either.
	I believe that schools are crucial in discovering and fostering talent. Many young people would not have discovered that they had a talent for sport if it had not been for their school. So, I want to ask the Minister a general question about support for health-related fitness in schools and for the chance to play sport. Are we giving enough time and encouragement to school sport? Are we providing enough facilities and coaches?
	I believe that sport and the arts—two subjects covered by our debates today—are vital to the life of a civilised society. We should encourage appreciation and participation from an early age in all communities both for their own sakes and to combat anti-social behaviour and encourage regeneration.

Baroness Billingham: My Lords, I, too, begin by thanking my noble friend Lord Pendry for initiating and introducing this debate today. His commitment to sport both in this House and in the other place is very well known to us all. His experience and knowledge are outstanding.
	We have a glittering array of speakers here today, showing the strength of interest that they have in this topic. As this is a sporting debate, I say at the outset that mine will be a speech of two halves. I shall deal with the "now", both in general terms and with specific reference to tennis, which provides us with a clear model as designed by a major governing body, and then with my view of the future and how sport could and should be organised nationally.
	My noble friend is so right to welcome the Government's positive commitment to the place of sport in our society. Picking up in 1997 when the profile of sport, and particularly the place of sport in the lives of young people, was depressingly low, we see a major turnaround in the importance our Government have given to the promotion of sport in its widest sense.
	Perhaps all the publicity about obesity in adults and children has helped focus attention on more active lifestyles. That in turn has made us look critically at the diminished sport on offer in the school curriculum for all our youngsters. Thus health, sport and education have become inextricably linked. That development is to be welcomed.
	However, whenever I speak about sport I always remind my listeners that sport is so much more than that. It can transform lives by creating a life-long involvement in a specific activity and as such is a crucial ingredient in promoting social inclusion. And, of course, sport is fun. Thus all the initiatives that my noble friend so clearly outlined fall into context in the overall blueprint to create a sporting nation. Of course, by creating the widest possible grassroots participation we are well on course to create sporting excellence. From that success flows the spur to emulate our sporting heroes. We need those role models to galvanise future generations.
	Like my noble friend Lord Pendry I welcome and acknowledge the huge injection of funds to facilitate our sporting expansion. Money for school sport, the setting up of centres of excellence and the encouragement of local clubs to become community amateur sports clubs are all invaluable and are already bearing fruit. The support for the British Olympic bid cannot be underestimated. Could there be a more public commitment to sport than a Government giving the bid the most outstanding backing from the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and the Sports Minister? No nation could have had more wholehearted commitment brilliantly led by the noble Lord, Lord Coe.
	I turn to a sport that is close to my heart—tennis. Government thinking is being echoed by the governing bodies with shared ambition to create an inclusive, vibrant and successful sporting nation.
	I start with the LTA and its determination to produce more and better players. To that end it is pledged to increase the number of juniors playing tennis by 5 per cent a year, to modernise a vibrant network of clubs and to identify, develop and support the most talented players and achieve six players in the world top 100 by 2009. That is all entirely worthwhile. Those pledges are backed by "heavy" money coming not only from the LTA's source, the All England Championships, but additionally, and for the first time, from a very sizeable injection of government money to the tune of £16.5 million over the next four years.
	The tennis club where I play constitutes a "village" with young and old playing side by side. It is a safe environment. Parents are assured of children's well-being. Like all habits—even good ones—the tennis habit once established can go on and on. That is why the LTA is focusing on clubs as the vehicle for development. Thus loans, grants and schemes linking clubs, schools and communities are at the top of the LTA's priorities. Alongside and additional to clubs the LTA is providing a framework for getting youngsters started. The first city tennis club in Hackney opened in 2001. There are now 28 such clubs nationwide and more than 25,000 kids a week are receiving coaching through the scheme. As has already been said, coaches are absolutely key to success. The LTA is creating more career opportunities to ensure that coaching standards rise and that all coaches are licensed to provide better protection for youngsters.
	Sports colleges are the cornerstone of the Government's sporting package and the LTA has invested £1.5 million in creating indoor and outdoor facilities at those centres. Equally important is the need to upgrade tennis teaching skills in our schools. In the past academic year, 1,750 primary school teachers, 550 secondary school teachers and 750 students attended tennis courses. Their forehands can only get better.
	While that LTA programme looks rosy, it is not without its critics. Tennis is still seen as a middle class, elitist activity. So Tennis for Free has stepped into the ring in the form of Tony Hawks and his allies in a campaign to open up under-used and often run-down public park courts, refurbish them and offer coaching free of charge on a regular basis. Pilot schemes are already up and running in Merton and they are very successful. There is support from the LTA but not for the "for free" concept. That argument is yet to be resolved but as a believer in creative conflict, I know that both sides are wholeheartedly working for the better future of tennis.
	I heard Billie Jean-King this morning endorsing the "for free" concept, especially as her illustrious career began on public courts in California. Indeed, here we are on the threshold of a new generation of young stars. We all looked with delight at Andy Murray last week at the Stella Artois tournament at Queen's. I am telling you; he is the real deal. He is the best technically that I have seen for years. He is also not what we are used to. He is fiery, thank heavens. As for his mother Judy, she is something else. I have known her for years and always admired her feisty play even when pitched against us at Oxfordshire at county week. Noble Lords may recall that for years Judy Murray was the Scottish number one. Well, there will be no more stiff upper lips from this tennis mum. A moment I will cherish at Queen's last week was when Andy fell down for the first time is of Judy shouting, "Get up and play!". That's my girl!
	I hope that the media will treat Andy better than they have treated Tim Henman. Tim has been quite wonderful; his record of 10 years in the top 10 is unparalleled in any other major sport in this country; yet he has been derided as a loser. It has hurt the player both on and off court and it has been unforgivable. So, just in case anyone in the media is listening today, could we ask for fair treatment? Do not build a player up and then take pleasure in knocking him down. In that respect, let us become American or French; let us support and sustain our players through their highs and lows. That way, we could just have some stars in the making.
	That is enough of the now; what of the future? Before making an argument for radical change in the way that sport is run in this country, I offer a few facts. Here, I echo the statistics given by the noble Lord, Lord Monro, because a good statistic is always worth repeating. In the UK, the Government spend £21 per capita; Germany spends £30 per capita; Australia spends £51 per capita; and France spends £112 per capita. The Prime Minister was quoted earlier this year saying that the government do not run sport and nor should they. I may challenge that. The result of that strategy is that for decades successive governments have taken totally reactive responses to sport. Their strategy has been piecemeal, and the provision of even basic sporting facilities is a total lottery. Some far-sighted local authorities have taken it upon themselves to provide more than their mandatory obligations; others considerably less.
	What makes a child take up sport? First, it is the introduction from family. In fact, children with mothers who take part in sport are 80 per cent more likely to take up sport themselves. An early introduction to sport through primary schools is sadly often offered by a reluctant junior member of staff with little or no physical education training. Crucially, proximity to facilities is important; living nearby within either walking or cycling distance to a club greatly enhances the likelihood of take-up. Thus clubs in urban areas, often fairly small, must be given protection from Nimbys and encouragement to upgrade their facilities. In rural areas some parish councils take good responsibility, but the myth that children in villages have plenty of space in which to exercise and play is totally unfounded. They often have less formal and informal open space at their disposal.
	I have laid out my prejudices. What proposals do I offer to the Prime Minister to transform the situation? First, let us be clear that there must be a Cabinet place for the Sports Minister, as sport in all forms and for many reasons is at the top of the agenda, the Minister must be able to influence Cabinet thinking not as some add-on later outside. Secondly, let us deal fundamentally with provision, not only of facilities but coaches, sport in schools and with volunteers within the sporting matrix. Let us take stock of the per capita funding outlined earlier. In other words, though it grieves me to say it, in this aspect France is right.
	I hope that the Minister will be able to look at the responsibilities and suggestions that I have made. Unless we do so, there will be a high price to pay. For radical change to happen we must have a political consensus. I am suggesting a sporting revolution. Would one way of achieving that consensus be to set up a Royal Commission for sport? All sides of the argument could have a say and perhaps lay the foundation for a most profound change. That way forward lies our success.

Lord Ramsbotham: My Lords, like all noble Lords who have spoken, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, for posing this Question and succeeding in securing this debate. As the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen, said in her contribution, before this debate some of us had been taking part in another debate about the arts and their role in regenerating communities. I start linking those by declaring an interest in both those subjects. I am currently chairing an inquiry in Manchester funded by the Whitbread Foundation, whose terms of reference are,
	"to encourage decision makers to maximise the contribution that the arts and sport can make to encourage young people to engage in work, education and training".
	It is important to remember in generating interest among our young people in becoming citizens of the country that the contribution that both the arts and sport have to make to that process should be linked and encouraged.
	The five-year plan for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport "Living Life to the Full" includes the sentence:
	"We know that sport can help to reduce crime, increase social inclusion, build sustainable communities and address inequalities".
	Of the two phrases that the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, used about the game plan of increasing international success or increasing participation, I will concentrate on increasing participation, because that is what I am looking at in particular in the context of Manchester. I confirm the remarkable change that has come about in Manchester as a result of the Commonwealth Games. It has provided an impetus and an inspiration for Manchester that is tangible and touches may things other than sport.
	In another place on 20 July 1910, Winston Churchill, summing up a debate on prison estimates, urged everyone to have,
	"an unfaltering faith that there is a treasure, if you can only find it, in the heart of every man".
	The only raw material that every nation has in common is its people. Woe betide it if it does not do everything that it can to identify, nurture and develop the talents of its people. By that I mean all its people. Nowhere is that process more appropriate than in sport.
	The subject of the debate is "sporting excellence". What Manchester has done about that has already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Pendry. I should like to refer to the deliberate effort of Manchester City Council and Manchester Leisure to start a process whereby individuals could have talent identified in the community or at school that could be taken forward to international level. That came up with an idea of the talent identification being matched by provision in 11 sports, up to and including international level, because it was backed up by mentors or experts at all levels and backed up by facilities. In other words, the marriage of facilities and facilitators at all levels enabled each of them to be accommodated. Particularly important in that were a large number of sports clubs, which had a role wider than providing the sports facility, because they provided a social context in which the people taking part developed relationships among themselves that went outside and beyond the playing field.
	Having succeeded in that, they have continued the process in two areas, first in leisure and adventure activities in parks, making canoeing and rock climbing and so on available; and secondly in 1995 they moved on to reach those in care and foster homes and those refugees and asylum seekers who were coming into Manchester to make certain that all their talents were identified. Instead of sporting clubs they developed community clubs in which those partaking in those activities could follow that up with social relationships as well.
	In addition, to make sure that funding was available to help out and that people did not always have to go into that extraordinary drawn-out procedure of trying to apply for government money—which can take many months—they set up a contingency fund in Manchester so that bright ideas could be instantly financed and sustained, because the one lesson that seems to have come out of all this is the need to break away from annuality in those developments and have three-to-five-year funding to make sure that they be continued.
	Among all that there is a remarkable figure whose name has already been mentioned: Geoff Thompson. He was born in Manchester: his father died when he was five, he came to south London with his mother, where, having a Manchester accent, he was picked on by people in south London. We can imagine the result: fighting and activities that are now called anti-social, which ended up with Thompson in a young offender establishment. He there came into contact with a Japanese karate instructor. We now fast forward to Geoff Thompson, captain of the Great Britain gold medal-winning karate team, having developed what he was inspired to do by someone he met in a young offender institution.
	He then considered, if sport had been the way that had lifted him out of the trough he was in, what could he do to enable others to do the same. So he formed something called the Youth Charter for Sport, Culture and the Arts and went to look for mentors to go into the hard areas of Manchester to try to encourage people out of it. I first met him in a prison outside Manchester recruiting sportsmen from prison whom he felt would be easily able to relate to the people whom he wished to attract.
	We then fast forward a bit further to Geoff Thompson being awarded an MBE for his work in helping to promote the Commonwealth Games. Geoff Thompson is now an agent for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, one hopes building on all those activities in the city, recognised by the people at the bottom who are causing all the trouble as someone who has come there and done it.
	To me that emphasises the importance of role models, and particularly sporting role models among our young. We must not underestimate their potential for weaning people into leading useful, law-abiding and healthy lives with social responsibility. I am fascinated how, in all this process, I find marvellous work being done by Manchester City football club and tremendous work being done by the Bradford Bulls rugby league club among that ethnic cocktail in Bradford. There is also a development by Chelsea, working with Youth at Risk, to develop sport not just as sport itself but also the lessons for life that come from team games, discipline, fitness and integrating with others.
	Therefore I feel very much that sporting excellence has a role in developing social responsibility that should not be ignored. I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Carter, mention the role of the private sector. I should like to commend him not just for the marvellous work of Sport England but for the work that his regional representatives do around the country. It is helping hugely.
	When thinking of social responsibility one can also think of corporate social responsibility and the role that the corporate organisations in communities have in developing those communities. I would like to see in all the programmes and plans that are made the government part including the corporate sector in the partnership of those people who are providing the facilities for helping people through this life.
	I believe firmly that the importance of developing sport in local communities is not only what it does for those communities and those who live in them but what it does for the future. That future is pressed on by concentrating on sporting excellence as driving up the standard of everything, so we could say that sporting excellence is a way to community excellence.

Lord Giddens: My Lords, let me first join the queue and thank my noble friend Lord Pendry for initiating the debate. I must register an interest in that this week I became a member of the board of the Football Foundation; or at least I believe I did. I had something of a misspent youth: when I was at school I played a lot of snooker. In my defence it was in a local temperance hall, but my teacher said, "You'll never get into university".
	When I got to university I played even more squash, and my tutor said, "You'll never go on to postgraduate work". When I went on to postgraduate work I chose to write a dissertation on the sociology of sport, which was not the thing to do in those days. I was at the London School of Economics, and if one was at the London School of Economics one studied work, not sport and leisure. My supervisor said, "You'll never get to teach in a university". When I got to teach in a university I sustained the interest in sport that I developed as a graduate student because sport makes a massive difference to people's lives. It matters an awful lot to an awful lot of people.
	We live in a world that is rapidly changing, that is marked by the intersection between the global and the local. Nothing is a clearer exposition of that than sport, especially football. If we look at the last World Cup, the statistics are amazing. If I were to ask noble Lords how many people watched the last World Cup on television, you might not be able to tell me, but the number was 28.8 billion people over the 25 days during which the contest unfolded: four times the population of the world.
	The 2002 Cup Final was watched by 1.1 billion people simultaneously: the most-watched event in the whole of human history. I do not know if one is allowed to tell jokes in the House of Lords, but if I am excommunicated it was very nice to know you all. A man arrives at the gates of heaven and St Peter is waiting for him. He says: "I'm afraid I can't let you in unless you've done something either extraordinarily good or brave". The man reflects and says, "Yes, I did do something brave: I used to be a football referee. I was refereeing an important game between Liverpool and Everton. The score was 0-0; it was at Anfield; there was one minute to go and I gave a penalty against Liverpool at the Kop End". St Peter says, "That was indeed brave. When did this happen?"; and the man says, "Three minutes ago".
	Sport is inspirational and aspirational. We cannot say that of many of our activities. That gives sport a fabulous transformative power. In the bulk of what I have to say I would like to discuss how far the transformative power of sport can be harnessed to social objectives and concentrate especially on the connection between sport and social exclusion. If we cannot solve some of the problems of social exclusion, we will not achieve the excellence in sport that this country needs.
	It is important to recognise that the Government have been active on that front as have been a number of other voluntary organisations. In 1999, a study was carried out by the University of Loughborough on sport and social exclusion. It was commissioned by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and was fastened on to by the Social Exclusion Unit in No. 10. It became the basis of PAT 10—Public Action Team 10—which came up with a range of important proposals for utilising sport as a means of regenerating communities and overcoming social divisions. One also has to mention the communities action programme that Sport England has initiated.
	Social exclusion is not the same as poverty. It is a better concept than poverty, because poverty is only one form of social exclusion. Social exclusion is whatever separates us from the mainstream of social life. I would like to comment briefly on three areas of social exclusion in relation to the role of sport. One is economic differences. Poorer people in this country participate far less in sport than more affluent people. The second is gender differences, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Monro. Women participate less in sporting and physical activities in the UK than men, which is not true in some other countries. The third is the question of most of us sitting or sleeping here— older people. Older people also fare poorly in sporting statistics in this country. Only 21 per cent of men and 18 per cent of women in this country do the recommended 30 minutes of exercise, four days a week, which is an appalling statistic.
	Briefly, what can one do in those three areas? On the role of sport in regenerating communities and overcoming social divisions, the Government must recognise—as must anyone involved in the administration of sport, such as my noble friend Lord Carter—that sport often accentuates social divisions. It represents wider social divisions. To say that sport can simply and easily overcome them is disingenuous and false. I spent a lot of my life in Cambridge, which is radically divided in terms of sports facilities. The colleges have an amazing range of grounds for all kinds of sports. On the other side of town, you have a few recreation grounds for the whole of the rest of the town.
	We know that sport is divisive, too. If you are a Tottenham supporter, who do you hate most? You should know if you come from north London. We were all brought up to hate either the Arsenal or Tottenham depending on which side of the fence we were on. Those communities that are closest often tend to have most animosity, so sport divides as well as integrates.
	Nevertheless, we know that sport can play a major role in community regeneration. The work of PAT 10 and Sport England is important on that. We have learnt that sport—like the arts, discussed this morning—has to be integrated with community development programmes. You cannot simply have sport as an add-on factor. To have a positive effect, you have to use sport and what I described as its aspirational and inspirational qualities in direct conjunction with a range of other programmes.
	By now, we know how that can be successful. For example, the Leyton Orient community sports scheme works in Tower Hamlets and a couple of other deprived communities. It has been very successful, because the people involved have not just sent one or two footballers down for the odd Sunday afternoon when they are not fully employed. They have been involved in a detailed and continuous way with leaders and ordinary people in the community. They speak regularly to teachers, doctors, business leaders and many others in the local community. You must engage in a positive way with the whole community.
	What about gender divisions, which are so important to sporting activity and the health of the nation? I looked at some material on the United States, which is really interesting compared to the UK. The United States has a significant organisation in its centre for research on girls and women in sport. I do not think that we have something wholly analogous here, but we probably should. The organisation is practical as well as intellectual. In the United States—not wholly because of that organisation—you have a massive surge in women's participation in sport and physical activities, so that the statistics there look very different from those here. There, more women than men take part in sport and physical activity—55 million women compared to 43 million men.
	We should aim for the same thing. There are problems, because class division again expresses itself through sport. Poor women in the United States are especially subject to obesity and other illnesses associated with lack of physical activity. There is a major class division to be overcome there, as in this country. If we cannot overcome such divisions, we will not be able to mobilise the power of sport.
	Finally, I turn to older people, including most of us sitting here. A lot of discussion of older people in this country has been about pensions and, in many of them, older people are treated as a problem. Why should we not treat older people as a solution? In our own lives, why should we not treat ageing as a positive process, not just a negative one? Of course ageing is a physical phenomenon and is, in some degree, inescapable. However, studies of ageing recently are extremely interesting. They show that, on the latest estimate, about 40 per cent of the ageing process in the body is the result of not taking exercise and the accumulation of bodily fat that results.
	Fauja Singh started running aged 81. He ran his first London Marathon aged 89, and has since run five of them. He is well into his 90s. Last weekend, he was due to be running in a relay marathon in Edinburgh. His team of five people had a total age of 400 years. Whether they won the event, I do not know.
	I come into the House quite a few days and see the coat hooks, which I think remind us all so much of our school days. We are all older people. I would like to come into the House in two years from now and see far more tracksuits than sticks hanging on the hooks, and I would like to see that to be as true of noble Baronesses as of noble Lords.

Lord Addington: My Lords, I shall take my first comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Billingham. This is a debate on which there is actually little difference between us when we look at what is going on. One of the most worrying things about such debates is the fact that we agree with each other. We can go back and talk about the problems and why sport is in this state today. The "he said, she said" debate with which we started does not really help us, because the fact is that in 1997 sport was in a mess. That was the unintentional consequence of certain things that happened, particularly in the schools sector under the Conservative government.
	However, the development that has undoubtedly helped us to reconstruct sport—the lottery—was done under the Conservative government. It has been raided by everyone ever since. That started with the Conservatives when they expanded the initial number of causes and set the precedent. If we can all take from the noble Baroness, Lady Billingham, the idea of growing up and working together because there is not that much between us, we will get a little further.
	I say that in the full knowledge that the recent publication of the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Coles, was almost exactly the same in tone and emphasis as our party's recently constructed policy. That is probably because we spoke to the same people; much will come down to that. Also, many of the problems that it points out are ones that we experienced. Politicians are an incredibly bad group to talk about sport. We like to talk about misery, expenditure and 126 or 127 local government priorities. You cannot "coffin wave" about social services. The proposal that a group of us tried to put through, but were stopped, at our party conference was trying to link sport to health, taking the healthcare budget and getting someone big and powerful behind you to push the issue up the agenda. We should use the Westminster model of, "We want our Bill". It did not happen. There are universal problems and if we in this place are interested, we can achieve something.
	Creating a great deal of fuss over the mess that sport was in has raised its political agenda. That included the arguments about playing fields. We realise that they are still being sold off and ask what is happening. But then you address the education budget and say, "Well we do not need the playing field for educational purposes, so let's get rid of it". If you are an education person, that is unarguable. I shall try to return to the subject of local sport, but the fact is that school sports fields were where virtually every amateur sports club held its first fixture. They were free of dog mess, you could play rugby on them without fear of losing an eye through infection and they were better maintained than the public park.
	The public park is a second option, but is one element of an issue where everything must be brought together. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, fairly pointed out to me, as Sport England did a few months ago, that we do not just need playing fields any more, because artificial surfaces are good. That is fine until you all want to play on them at the same time. One large field can be marked out for several different sports and you can have many matches, including rugby and football, happening at different times. You cannot do that with greater investment in just one pitch. One needs an area on the ground where people can take part in organised sporting activities at a similar time.
	One important factor has stopped sporting activity going into free fall in this country. Privately funded and owned amateur sports clubs have filled the gap. That is particularly true in our traditional sports of rugby, football and cricket, where a group of people have gathered together, purchased a ground and maintained it themselves. They have done that with virtually no government assistance. We have only recently started giving them taxation breaks—something that my noble friend Lord Phillips has been instrumental in—by gathering a group of us together.
	As a political class, we have not taken a grip on what sport can do. We must all pay attention to it. Half of the errors in this field would not have been made if the people in political parties and their opponents had coherently, without being too partisan, pointed out what would happen. We all share blame for the problems and thus we can all take credit for a few of the improvements. If we continue to push forward on a united front, this House, whose great strength as a revising Chamber is dealing with fine detail, will have a greater responsibility for action in that field than even another place. We must address this as a group.
	The recent publication from the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Coles, pointed out wonderfully on page 224 how funding followed a "drunken spider's map". It is a simplified version. It looks like a madman has tried to travel between two points. Funding chases around itself for alternative sources and different departments become involved. That is without taking into account the internal politics of sport, involving the established "old boy" set-ups—the blazer brigade who defend their own territory and refuse to accept outside intervention. That world must be taken by the scruff of the neck and shaken hard.
	Key factors must be addressed. One is that people drop out of sport at an alarmingly higher rate after leaving school in our society than virtually anywhere else. Part of that may be the historical problems that I have mentioned, but one of the main problems is that we have never fully developed the link between club and school. Everyone now agrees with that. The only disagreement that I have come across here in recent years is that when people say "school sport", I would say "school age sport". No single model will fit all. You should probably start by considering local circumstances.
	I hope that we will always remember that the traditional second-rate public school model of playing for your school definitely does not work. It never did. As a student in Aberdeen, I was astounded by the number of ex-schoolboy rugby internationals who never wanted to see another rugby ball again the minute they got away from that school environment, because they did not want to play the game. They were just good athletes who were told that that was their prestige sport. We must ensure that people play a sport because they want to play it and we must allow them to sample enough sports within the cultural environment to find out which one is theirs.
	Noble Lords have spoken about whether new sports such as tennis should be tried, as the noble Baroness, Lady Billingham, mentioned. It is traditionally one of the most class-ridden sports in Great Britain. We must try to introduce that game as not being something that most people watch for, say, six weeks of year. I was about 12 before I realised that tennis was played outside the Wimbledon forum. The sport must be made available and not be an interaction whereby you nick the balls from public parks. We must take it further and we are doing better.
	Indeed, the great bug-bear for child activity is the interesting concept, the "rampant passivity" that was mentioned by a noble Lord. The flip-side of having a TV in every room is that people see other sports and realise that there are other things out there. We must maintain pressure on all the broadcasters to show that other sports are there. Ensuring that the final of the European women's final for football was on television and that women could go out there and play this game was a great achievement. The gender gap is not there. It has been knocked aside.
	What is required to achieve higher levels of participation in sport? I have no time to mention levels of excellence, other than the fact that they do not sit as well with amateur and local sport as you might think, because it may never experience excellence if that is being selected and taken away at an early age. If you know at 16 that you are a potential champion, you probably do not want to play in your local first-11 or 15, or the local tennis tournaments. You want to play with the other elite kids of your age.
	We must ensure that participation levels are increased by making sure that people have access to knowledge about sports as well as playing the sports themselves—probably in that order. It must be seen as a positive model. Government must ensure that we simplify the stream and that it is more integrated into our society—either as an educational or a health benefit because sport needs something hard pushing at it. I fully accept that the arts may be similar and might achieve many of the same things in terms of social welfare. Sport has shown itself to be too diverse and inward looking to push itself to the top of the agenda.
	Government must put sport into the political process so that it can obtain the prestige to bring itself to the forefront. Unless we can find a way forward, we will come back and talk again and again. It will happen every time the next fad or fashion pushes sport to the back of the agenda, or when a degree of complacency creeps in. It has happened in the past and, unless we watch out, it will happen again.

Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
	Looking round this not very crowded and soon to be probably rather empty Chamber, the effect of moving debate day to Thursday becomes very obvious. Last business on a Thursday is about the worst slot it is possible to have, but it was the earliest that I could get. However, I am not dismayed.
	I introduced this Bill for the first time in this House in November 2003. At Second Reading on 17 December, six noble Lords spoke in support, only one of whom is here today; and three against, only one of whom is here today. It was passed unamended in January 2004, after which it languished, forgotten, in another place.
	For 62 years I lived two miles from Fraserburgh, once one of the biggest and most prosperous fishing ports in the country, founded more than 400 years ago by my ancestor. The prosperity of Fraserburgh is very dear to my heart. I have witnessed with sorrow the decline of the fishing industry on which it depends.
	The common fisheries policy, after years of failure to achieve sustainable management of European fisheries, was due for substantial overhaul by December 2002. A promising package of proposals, adopted by the Commission in May 2002, was wrecked by decisions taken by the Council in December 2002 as a result of pressure from certain interested member states.
	For many years, cod and hake stocks have been falling to dangerously low levels. The measures agreed by the Council to protect them have been totally inadequate. There was little reason to suppose that the story would be any different in December 2003. It was not. Cod boats were still allowed 15 days a month and haddock and prawn quotas were increased to compensate.
	In December 2004, following the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution's report, Turning the Tide, a little more was done, but not much. Days at sea for cod boats were reduced by one, except where they use 120mm or larger net mesh, as most of our boats do, for which they were not reduced.
	Regional advisory councils, such as our North Sea one, were to be in place for all regions by June 2005. When he winds up, perhaps the Minister will tell us whether they are or not. From what I have been reading in the House of Commons Committee report, The Future for UK Fishing, published in March, I think that they are not. But over the years it has been the same old story of too little too late. Not much has changed in the past 18 months.
	What I found particularly unsatisfactory were the words of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation on the subject of the 2004 negotiations with the European Commission:
	"Delicate negotiations were necessary to achieve a sensible outcome for the industry and a face saving formula for the Commission".
	The whole concept of having to save the face of the Commission being a consideration in negotiations of such importance, both to our fisheries and to the future of cod stocks, is to me just one more excellent reason for getting rid of the Commission and running our own fisheries.
	Total allowable catches, which are still with us, are a very inefficient method of controlling the quantity of fish caught so far as conservation is concerned. They lead to the wicked practice of discarding; that is, throwing overboard to die fish caught over and above the permitted quota and, worse than that, young, undersized fish which are unmarketable and should not be caught at all, but left in the sea to grow to maturity. The Dutch and French boats are far worse culprits than ours. Even though the discarded fish do not necessarily go to waste since they will be eaten by the sea's scavengers, such as cod at the best and predatory birds such as skuas at the worst, it is no way to conserve fish stocks. But what I do not see is how discarding can be stopped as long as we have the TAC and quota system. I do not think it can, and the Commons committee in its report to which I referred earlier appears, on pages 34 and 35, to agree.
	Most important of all in the long term so far as effort reduction is concerned, and more effective than days-at-sea limitation, is the decommissioning of a proportion of the existing European fishing fleet. About 60 per cent of the Scottish fleet has already been decommissioned, but so far such decommissioning as has been done by the rest of the European Union fleet has been largely negated by the building and licensing of new, bigger and better boats with the help of EU grants. That has got to stop, but I do not believe that the common fisheries policy will ever stop it, and therefore I think it essential that we take our fisheries out of the CFP.
	Moreover, since one of the recommendations made in the report, Turning the Tide, on the impact of fisheries on the marine environment is that 30 per cent of the fishing grounds in British waters should be closed to all commercial fishing, although I do not know for how long, I think the time has come to preserve the remaining grounds to our own UK, and particularly Scottish, fishermen who mostly do not want to fish in the Bay of Biscay, the Atlantic or the Mediterranean, which are the traditional fishing grounds of the French and Spanish boats. The common fisheries policy has never been of any benefit to this country. Joining it was the price we paid to join the European Union. It has not been worth it. Sometimes I wonder whether joining the European Union has been worth it, and I am not alone.
	At the end of the day we in this country have a far greater interest in the sound management of our fish stocks than do other member states which fish our waters, and are anxious to continue doing so because 70 per cent of the European Union fish stocks are in our waters. It is the living of our fishermen, and that of their children and grandchildren, which is at stake. As the Cod Crusaders, a pressure group formed by two wives of Fraserburgh fishermen, have said:
	"The EU Common Fisheries Policy has failed to conserve fish stocks. It has caused untold hardship for fishermen and their local communities and industries. That policy cannot be reformed. The EU nation states must regain control of their own waters rather than the competence for fisheries remaining with Brussels. That has not worked. It has been proved to be ineffective and inadequate in the conservation and management of fish resources. It has resulted in bankruptcies, the uprooting of individuals and families, the destruction of thriving communities with centuries-old cultural traditions, and communal lives".
	If the decision about who fished our waters was ours alone, our fishermen would fare much better. That is the reason for this Bill.
	Clause 1 gives the Secretary of State power by affirmative order to withdraw from the common fisheries policy on such a date as he shall determine, regardless of the provisions of the European Communities Act 1972.
	Clause 2 amends the Fishery Limits Act 1976 so that foreign fishing boats not registered in a country with a fisheries agreement with the United Kingdom would be forbidden to enter United Kingdom fisheries limits. Member countries of the European Union are specifically forbidden to fish within fishery limits unless their respective countries are designated access under the 1976 Act. No country would be so designated unless both reciprocal rights to fish in their waters are granted to UK fishing boats, and they observe the same or more stringent conservation measures as those applied within British fishery limits.
	Provision is also made in this clause for a licensing regime for fishing boats within British fishery limits; for penalties for unlicensed fishing; for the landing in the UK, Isle of Man or the Channel Islands of fish caught within British waters, or for their being reported to Ministers and available for inspection if landed elsewhere; for the conduct of relations with the Faeroe Islands, Iceland, Ireland and Norway with regard to fisheries; for the use of statutory instruments relating to the fisheries regime; and for the taking of the devolution of powers into account.
	Clause 3 makes financial provision for any expenditure of the Secretary of State consequent upon the Act. Clause 4 concerns the citation, extent and commencement date. The Bill will extend to the whole of the United Kingdom.
	This is an enabling Bill. It does not take the United Kingdom out of the common fisheries policy. It merely enables the Secretary of State to make an order to do so—an order that will require the approval of both Houses of Parliament. What I hope the Bill will do is to send a very clear signal to the Council of Ministers and the Commission that people in this country are getting very fed up. By so doing, it will give the Minister responsible for negotiations with the Council a stronger hand to play.
	Our Ministers try very hard, but they are agriculture Ministers and even if any of them know anything about agriculture, that does not necessarily mean that they know about fishing. Any help or ammunition that we can give them we should give unstintingly. I commend the Bill to the House.
	Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lady Saltoun of Abernethy.)

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I certainly congratulate the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy, on her persistence in bringing forward this Bill. She does address a serious issue.
	I agree with her on a few points, the first of which is the effect of moving the debate day to Thursday. Secondly, over the years the Commission has dragged its feet disgracefully, and the Council has been completely hopeless in putting political expediency before any sort of consideration of conservation of fish stocks. Also, the total allowable catch system has proved a disastrous way of addressing the conservation of fish.
	Finally, I would agree with her that effort reduction is part of the way forward. But I am afraid that there my agreement with her must end, because although her Bill is trying to address a serious issue times have moved on and it is no longer the way in which we can address the conservation of our marine environment, which includes the conservation of our fish stocks and ensuring the livelihood of some fishermen in a fishing community.
	The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution's report of December 2004, Turning the Tide, made it clear that all its recommendations, which merit being adopted en bloc by the Government, leave a clear framework for a way forward. It makes it clear that action needs to be taken across EU waters at EU level and equally in our UK waters. However it makes no suggestion—indeed, it refutes the suggestion—that that should be done by withdrawal from the EU.
	There are a couple of reasons why we need to work within the framework of a much wider geographical area than our own. First, species move across seas and oceans and they do not pay any attention to national boundaries; secondly, as I understand from the scientists involved, there is an unprecedented movement of species due to climate change. The fairly steady pattern in where species live, which applied perhaps 20 years ago, no longer applies.
	It is clear that we need to develop healthy marine ecosystems, both in our UK waters and in EU waters. The EU is about to publish, in July, a marine thematic strategy. It will be a first for the European Union in that it will come from the Environment Directorate and will therefore have a much greater emphasis on conservation than the fisheries strategies, which always had a more commercial angle.
	Conservation and developing a healthy ecosystem are the first steps in achieving what the noble Lady wants to achieve: to create a livelihood for the fishing communities. If we continue down the road that we are on, even if we repatriated our fisheries waters I do not believe—for a couple of reasons that I will set out in a moment—that it would make a great difference. The UK Government are intending to introduce a marine Bill. I hope that the Minister will tell me that that is under way and that the draft Bill will be published shortly, because it is extremely urgent.
	It is incredible that we have no planning system for what happens in marine areas, so that what may be valuable spawning grounds within UK waters may be subject to gravel extraction, all sorts of dredging and other activities that damage the fish stocks. Now that the pilot for that type of approach has been completed in the Irish Sea, the Government should speed up their introduction of the marine Bill. Even if it is imperfect—as I am sure we will accuse it of being from time to time—I would welcome its early introduction.
	Another way forward of which I am sure the noble Lady is aware—it has been under way for a while now in Scotland—is the approach taken by Ross Finnie, the Scotland fisheries Minister, who is trying to deliver genuine regional management of the fishing stocks there where regional advisory councils are given genuine powers over managing fish stocks on the basis of scientific evidence. They are making definite progress—albeit slow progress—in that regard.
	Perhaps the first measure of success, beyond the fact that the North Sea Regional Advisory Council has been set up and that decisions are increasingly taken on the basis of scientific evidence rather than political expediency, is the recent example of the European Commission banning sand-eel fishing in the North Sea due to dangerously low stock levels. When sand-eel fishing falls to low levels, it is a barometer of the health of an awful lot of other fish stocks, because of their place in the food chain.
	A number of practices still go on that are extremely detrimental in a way that we probably have not begun to understand yet, but they have been explained well in Turning the Tide. The greatest such practice is bottom-trawling, which will have to be addressed. I congratulate the fishermen from Looe in Cornwall who took the initiative to go back to hand-line fishing for mackerel, and now market and label their produce as such. That is ecologically far more sound.
	The next thing at which the Government should look seriously is extending the experiment taking place round Lundy of the no-take zone, which is yielding very promising results in the way that fish stocks can regenerate quickly. When I was there last weekend, I noticed that the fish stocks might have regenerated particularly fast, because there was a little ring of trawlers just beyond the no-take zone. That tends to suggest an increase.
	I disagree with the noble Lords, Lord Stoddart and Lord Greenway. It is hard to speak against fishermen for all the reasons of political expediency, and because they have a wonderful tradition of doing a brave job. The job appeals to us not only because they bring home produce that we like, but because of our hunter-gatherer instinct. However, they should be prosecuted when they do things that are, as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said, a little wrong. That is a bit like being a little pregnant. You are either doing something that is against the law and wrong, or you are not. If we are seriously to conserve fish stocks and introduce ways of conserving fish, when people break they law they will have to be prosecuted, unfortunately. I support Defra in taking that action.